[PD-dev] [ pure-data-Patches-3521816 ] Setting externals file extension, check for ANDROID platform

[SourceForge.net]

Patches item #3521816, was opened at 2012-04-26 19:25
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by zmoelnig
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=478072&aid=3521816&group_id=55736

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: puredata
Group: bugfix
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: https://www.google.com/accounts ()
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: Setting externals file extension, check for ANDROID platform

Initial Comment:
The Android GCC toolchain #defines linux, so the Android specific branch was never being hit. Moving the check above Linux fixes it.

Before this patch external extensions ".l_i386" and ".pd_linux" are checked for on Android. This patch will accept either ".l_arm" or ".pd_linux", so the externals built by PdCore will still work.

It doesn't address the issue of Android x86.

Should probably add a check for arm vs x86 architecture too, but I haven't been able to find documentation of the architecture macros.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: IOhannes m zmölnig (zmoelnig)
Date: 2012-04-28 10:16

Message:
thanks for the respone.

ad #1: very few people using .d_ppc/.d_fat is not really creating any
"problems", is it?

ad #2: will do (though afaict, PdX has a patch that actively removes the
functionality; should i create a patch that re-adds the extensions or
should i modify (eventually remove) the patch that erroneously removes the
extensions?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Hans-Christoph Steiner (eighthave)
Date: 2012-04-27 19:32

Message:
In response to #1: very few people are using .d_ppc and .d_fat files with
Pd vanilla.

and #2: patches welcome

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: IOhannes m zmölnig (zmoelnig)
Date: 2012-04-27 08:54

Message:
<flames>
"Those file extension have a lot of issues as they are, for example, no
other program for Darwin/MacOSX uses per-arch file extension"...what
exactly is the "lot of issues" here? no other program for Darwin/MacOSX is
called "Pd", and still this is no issue.
</flames>
<moreflames>
if Pd-extended ignores binary files that it could happily load and by doing
so breaks compatibility with Pd-vanilla, i would say this is a bug in
Pd-extended.
</moreflames>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Hans-Christoph Steiner (eighthave)
Date: 2012-04-27 07:36

Message:
What about just defining '.so' has a possibility if __linux__, __FreeBSD__,
__FreeBSD_kernel__, __OpenBSD__ are defined, then people can choose to
manage the architecture in their own way.

Those file extension have a lot of issues as they are, for example, no
other program for Darwin/MacOSX uses per-arch file extensions: they use
universal binaries.  For this reason , Pd-extended on Mac OS X only uses
.pd_darwin and universal binaries and ignores .d_fat and .d_ppc.  Also,
Pd's .l_ia64 does not actually mean ia64 arch but instead amd64/x86_64, so
that file extension is just wrong.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=478072&aid=3521816&group_id=55736