Re: [chuck-users] chuck 1.2.1.2 still doesn't work on 64-bit linux

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Stephen Sinclair wrote:

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Kassen wrote:

...

2008/7/21 Stephen Sinclair :

...

Sorry, just that this one keeps coming up, and is obviously a bug of interest to several people. But a topic like "chuck still doesn't work on 64-bit linux" sounds like someone wondering why it hasn't been fixed yet. And the answer is simply, "because no one's fixed it."

Yes, I see. Still, I didn't read Michael's post that way, I read it more as asking whether anybody has made any progress and implying Michael himself had at least had some results using compatibility drivers (which I think is news?).

I think that even asking why something hasn't been fixed yet (though probably not in those exact words) can be a constructive thing and need not be a "complaint". For example; I have been asking from time to time why Philippe's results in getting a ASIO build haven't yet been merged into the main Windows version. To me that's not a complaint as such, there may be good reasons, for example for a long time there was no suitable test system at Princeton, there could be a lack of time.

I think that in many cases figuring out where exactly we are stuck can lead to people helping to move things forward. In the case of ASIO there was a set of tests done with a relatively wide variety of ASIO-enabled soundcards, I don't think those tests would've been done as publicly and in that way if Ge hadn't pointed out ASIO was stuck partially because of a lack of testing systems. With Ge's move to Stanford this could have changed, we'll never know if nobody asks and if there are no requests it may be harder to place priorities.

Because of this I didn't feel it was benefitial to describe this post as a "complaint"; I think we are all grateful for what *has* been done by those generously donating their time. Michael's post itself didn't strike me as particularly demanding (for lack of a better word) but I can see how the subject title could give that impression.

Yes, I intended to be blunt but not disrespectful. I agree with you, but the 64-bit problem is one that tends to come up quite frequently. So, sorry for my negative reply, here's a more positive response:

Has anyone had any success making portions of ChucK 64-bit-ready? I think taking things one small chunk at a time might be the way to go, though that could be easier said than done.

I gave it a try with the last source release, by adjusting the size of the pointers in the main header file and fixing the compile errors. That worked on a few more examples than the binary that is built by default, but it still blew whenever certian library calls were made. Unfortunately I am not much of a C programmer, and threw out whatever I had accomplished before. If anyone who knows what they are doing wants to jump in, I would be very willing to help test it. As far as the 32-bit compat libs, I thought someone on Ubuntu-64 had gotten chuck to work? I don't have any of those on my machine (gentoo amd64/2008.0/no-multilib profile). michael