22 messages in at.iem.pd-devRe: [PD-dev] loaderHEX bug report| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Hans-Christoph Steiner | Nov 21, 2005 10:16 pm | |
| IOhannes m zmoelnig | Nov 22, 2005 1:54 am | |
| Hans-Christoph Steiner | Nov 22, 2005 7:31 am | |
| IOhannes m zmoelnig | Nov 22, 2005 7:42 am | |
| Hans-Christoph Steiner | Nov 22, 2005 8:22 am | |
| IOhannes m zmoelnig | Nov 22, 2005 8:38 am | |
| günter geiger | Nov 22, 2005 9:03 am | |
| IOhannes m zmoelnig | Nov 22, 2005 9:29 am | |
| Hans-Christoph Steiner | Nov 22, 2005 10:10 pm | |
| IOhannes m zmoelnig | Nov 23, 2005 2:09 am | |
| Thomas Grill | Nov 23, 2005 3:31 am | |
| IOhannes m zmoelnig | Nov 23, 2005 4:22 am | |
| Thomas Grill | Nov 23, 2005 4:25 am | |
| geiger | Nov 23, 2005 7:38 am | |
| IOhannes m zmoelnig | Nov 23, 2005 7:46 am | |
| Hans-Christoph Steiner | Nov 23, 2005 8:41 am | |
| Hans-Christoph Steiner | Nov 23, 2005 8:50 am | |
| Hans-Christoph Steiner | Nov 23, 2005 8:51 am | |
| IOhannes m zmoelnig | Nov 23, 2005 8:53 am | |
| Hans-Christoph Steiner | Nov 23, 2005 2:34 pm | |
| geiger | Nov 24, 2005 2:09 am | |
| IOhannes m zmoelnig | Nov 30, 2005 9:44 am |
| Subject: | Re: [PD-dev] loaderHEX bug report | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | IOhannes m zmoelnig (zmoe...@iem.at) | |
| Date: | Nov 22, 2005 7:42:47 am | |
| List: | at.iem.pd-dev | |
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
in build/mtx_0x2a.c the wrong setup-function is defined.
Ah, thanks... it was a long day. Did you get the other bug report? That one is a bug in the patch... really! ;)
yes, i know though i haven't made any steps to commit a fixed patch yet...
I have a question, why did you reverse the order of the original stantard setup function?
i.e. original = mtx_+_setup() altname = setup_mtx_0x2a()
I think that just makes things confusing and causes bugs, well, like the one we just talked about.
yes it is confusing but: i want to have a different setup-function for the alternative names; otherwise it would forbid to make an object that is really called "mtx_0x2a". on 2nd thought, this is _almost_ impossible now too, because it is hard (though possible) to have 2 mtx_0x2a.pd_linux lying around (one for the [mtx_*] and one for [mtx_0x2a])
what is more important is, that you cannot start function names with numbers (at least in C) so the [<<<] object (which would expand to "0x3c0x3c0x3c") cannot have a valid setup-function "0x3c0x3c0x3c_setup()"; however "setup_0x3c0x3c0x3c()" is fine.
so i really think, that there should be 2 separate names (if we agree, that it would be a bad idea to rename the standard setupfun-name to setup_***()
mfg.a.r IOhannes