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

Adrian Knoth <[hidden]> writes:

> So this leaves us with the following options:
>
>    a) use aligned and provide the proper alignment size OR
>    b) use packed and disable it on ARM
>    c) use ms_struct on gcc Win x86

d) use packed structs and manually align using padding data members

As for msvc vs gcc on jack2 for windows... You also may have problem
with the C++ standard library. I bet they are incompatible. Providing
windows builds for different compilers (and platforms) should solve the
c++ stdlib issue and the libjack ABI issue. I think that for the libjack
API structs, either natural (for the currently selected compiler)
alignment should be used, or the packed format format with explicit
padding. As it makes little sense to have libjack and jack server built
using different compilers, we are left with the 32/64 bit issue that is
a sin of the proprietary corporations (Microsoft, Adobe). If this one is
to be resolved, the packed format with explicit padding makes most sense
to me.

I personally only care about the RISC issue. Because by packging without
ensuring the required alignment (C is portable across machines, do you
remember?), the produced code is in the dark zone of the undefined
behaviour (as stated by the language standards). And those standards are
crafted exactly to make C a language that allows writting portable
programs. Portable, not portable without addition thought and work.

The 32/64 issue has non-libre roots.

The msvc issues grow in a non-libre environment with c++ agnostic
(read, hardly portable) attitude.

This thread caused me think about and sing this song:

People talking without speaking,
People hearing without listening,
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared Disturb the sound of silence.

-- 
Nedko Arnaudov <GnuPG KeyID: 5D1B58ED>

1357603637.17666_0.ltw:2,S <87txqso7vh.fsf at arnaudov dot name>