Re: [Jack-Devel] JACK 1.9.10 to test (for 64/32 bits compatibility)

PrevNext  Index
DateMon, 07 Jan 2013 09:35:01 -0500
From Paul Davis <[hidden] at linuxaudiosystems dot com>
ToAdrian Knoth <[hidden] at drcomp dot erfurt dot thur dot de>
CcJACK <[hidden] at lists dot jackaudio dot org>
In-Reply-ToAdrian Knoth Re: [Jack-Devel] JACK 1.9.10 to test (for 64/32 bits compatibility)
Follow-UpJohn Emmas Re: [Jack-Devel] JACK 1.9.10 to test (for 64/32 bits compatibility)
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Adrian Knoth <[hidden]>wrote:

> On 01/07/2013 03:11 PM, John Emmas wrote:
>
> > structs.  JackTransportEngine is one (IIRC) and there are two others.
> > This situation is only an issue if libjack is built with a different
> > compiler than whatever built the server. For example, it's important
> > in our Mixbus Debug build, where we generally use a version of libjack
> > built using MSVC (because that's the only way we can debug it).
>
> I'm not entirely sure, but I'd say this use case is invalid. You can
> also build jackd with MSVC, thus solving your particular problem at
> hand. Or what am I missing?
>

I completely concur.

server+compiler "foo" interacting with libjack+compiler "bar" is not
something we should even be thinking about.

we've spent years telling users that (a) you cannot have two versions of
JACK installed (b) JACK is a system comprised of a server and a library.

I can see no reason to put any effort whatsoever into supporting a
mixed-compiler build of the server and library. it is just insane.
PrevNext  Index

1357569304.22990_0.ltw:2,a <CAFa_cKkfUR4Rkm7MHU-JspXrqcgMm-D9KaY9qywmWNzh+uyScw at mail dot gmail dot com>