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

Stephen Sinclair radarsat1 at gmail.com
Mon Jul 21 14:09:00 EDT 2008

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Kassen <signal.automatique at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/7/21 Stephen Sinclair <radarsat1 at gmail.com>:
>> 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.


More information about the chuck-users mailing list