Re: [fluid-dev] I removed GLIB dependency from my build.

2017-10-13 Thread Tom M.
gt; CC : > Date : Fri, 13 Oct 2017 0:52:51 +0900 (KST), Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:52:06 > +0200 > > Subject : Re: [fluid-dev] I removed GLIB dependency from my build. > > Are C11 or C++11 programs compilable on OS/2 or ArcaOS? > > > Tom > > 2017-10-12 16:24 GMT+02:00 KO

Re: [fluid-dev] I removed GLIB dependency from my build.

2017-10-13 Thread KO Myung-Hun
().--- Original message - From : "Tom M." To : "FluidSynth mailing list" CC : Date : Fri, 13 Oct 2017 0:52:51 +0900 (KST), Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:52:06 +0200 Subject : Re: [fluid-dev] I removed GLIB dependency from my build. Are C11 or C++11 programs c

Re: [fluid-dev] I removed GLIB dependency from my build.

2017-10-12 Thread Tom M.
From : "Philippe Simons" > To : "FluidSynth mailing list" > CC : > Date : Thu, 12 Oct 2017 1:4:44 +0900 (KST), Wed, 11 Oct 2017 18:00:43 +0200 > Subject : Re: [fluid-dev] I removed GLIB dependency from my build. > > Isn't OS/2 already dead anyway? > >

Re: [fluid-dev] I removed GLIB dependency from my build.

2017-10-12 Thread KO Myung-Hun
:00:43 +0200 Subject : Re: [fluid-dev] I removed GLIB dependency from my build. Isn't OS/2 already dead anyway? On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Tom M. <tom.m...@googlemail.com> wrote: TinyCThread looks good. Even though they only support Win32 and Pthreads they imp

Re: [fluid-dev] I removed GLIB dependency from my build.

2017-10-11 Thread Tom M.
> I don't know about C11, but i vote for the use of a custom minimum necessary library (static/dll) with an API compatible (glib or c11) ? I dont want to jump from one OSAL library to another. The only reasonable step to supersede glib is moving to C11. And it's a shame that even in 2017 there are

Re: [fluid-dev] I removed GLIB dependency from my build.

2017-10-11 Thread Philippe Simons
Isn't OS/2 already dead anyway? On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Tom M. wrote: > TinyCThread looks good. Even though they only support Win32 and Pthreads > they implement the C11 API. So we could move to C11: > > #ifdef __STDC_NO_ATOMICS__ > #error "Compiler has no C11 atomics" > #endif > > #

Re: [fluid-dev] I removed GLIB dependency from my build.

2017-10-11 Thread Ceresa Jean-Jacques
c11) ? With the help of Element knowledge about glib, this should be feasable. cheers. jjc > Message du 11/10/17 13:12 > De : "Tom M." > A : reinh...@notation.com, "FluidSynth mailing list" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [fluid-dev] I removed GLIB dependency from

Re: [fluid-dev] I removed GLIB dependency from my build.

2017-10-11 Thread Tom M.
Tom M. > *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 11. Oktober 2017 10:19 > *An:* FluidSynth mailing list > *Betreff:* Re: [fluid-dev] I removed GLIB dependency from my build. > > TinyCThread looks good. Even though they only support Win32 and Pthreads > they implement the C11 API. So we could mov

Re: [fluid-dev] I removed GLIB dependency from my build.

2017-10-11 Thread Reinhold Hoffmann
:19 An: FluidSynth mailing list Betreff: Re: [fluid-dev] I removed GLIB dependency from my build. TinyCThread looks good. Even though they only support Win32 and Pthreads they implement the C11 API. So we could move to C11: #ifdef __STDC_NO_ATOMICS__ #error "Compiler has no C11 at

Re: [fluid-dev] I removed GLIB dependency from my build.

2017-10-11 Thread Tom M.
TinyCThread looks good. Even though they only support Win32 and Pthreads they implement the C11 API. So we could move to C11: #ifdef __STDC_NO_ATOMICS__ #error "Compiler has no C11 atomics" #endif #ifdef __STDC_NO_THREADS__ #include #else #include #endif This however might be the end of

Re: [fluid-dev] I removed GLIB dependency from my build.

2017-10-10 Thread Ryan Gonzalez
FWIW I had been working on removing glib two years ago or a bit less (dang, was it really that long ago?), as this is basically why I stopped when I was almost done: it really wasn't maintainable. Realistically, I do think there's literally no major alternative. I mean, for atomics there's libatom

Re: [fluid-dev] I removed GLIB dependency from my build.

2017-10-10 Thread Tom M.
> would moving to another libc that supports the necessary C11 extensions be a possibility? Dont think so. glibc has such a monopoly on unix systems. And musl only supports Linux as it seems. The core problem I see is that threads and even atomic are an optional C11 feature. While I could live wi

Re: [fluid-dev] I removed GLIB dependency from my build.

2017-10-10 Thread Marcus Weseloh
Sorry, sent off too early. Let me try again... Hi all, Just a quick thought: would moving to another libc that supports the necessary C11 extensions be a possibility? I've read that musl has C11 support, including the threading extensions. [1] Not sure how big the repercussions would be for the

Re: [fluid-dev] I removed GLIB dependency from my build.

2017-10-10 Thread Marcus Weseloh
Hi all, Just a quick thought: would moving to another libc that supports the necessary C11 extensions be a possibility? I've read that musl has C11 support, including the threading extensions. Not sure how big the repercussions would be for the Linux and Mac OS ports, Am 10.10.2017 19:32 schrie

Re: [fluid-dev] I removed GLIB dependency from my build.

2017-10-10 Thread Tom M.
Without having seen your changes, you have probably done something like what existed before glib: https://github.com/FluidSynth/fluidsynth/blob/b49458e817ed09aedd948a6ea1831965373adc80/fluidsynth/src/fluid_sys.h#L142 This is not an option because it's unmaintainable. See the related discussion her

[fluid-dev] I removed GLIB dependency from my build.

2017-10-10 Thread Carlo Bramini
Hello, as I wrote in the subject, I worked a bit on Fluidsynth and I made a version that works fine without external dependencies. I compiled it on the ancient VisualStudio 6.0 and my version currentl runs on Windows. However, it should not be difficult to include a new driver for adding again s