9 Jun
2024
9 Jun
'24
9:50 a.m.
PandaResampler 0.2.0 has been released.
This is a header only library for C++ which implements fast factor 2, 4
or 8 upsampling and downsampling based on SSE instructions. I've
developed the code for my DSP code in Anklang and SpectMorph.
It might be useful for you if you have some DSP loop which needs to be
oversampled to avoid aliasing.
https://github.com/swesterfeld/pandaresampler
--
Stefan Westerfeld, http://space.twc.de/~stefan
9 Jun
9 Jun
11:51 a.m.
On Sun, Jun 09, 2024 at 09:50:27AM +0200, Stefan Westerfeld wrote:
PandaResampler 0.2.0 has been released.
./configure: line 16969: syntax error near unexpected token `11,'
./configure: line 16969: `AX_CXX_COMPILE_STDCXX(11, noext, mandatory)'
I'm an absolute NOOB re. autotools...
Ciao,
--
FA
3:23 p.m.
Le 2024-06-09 à 05 h 51, Fons Adriaensen a écrit :
On Sun, Jun 09, 2024 at 09:50:27AM +0200, Stefan
Westerfeld wrote:
Install old autoconf macros:
https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf-archive/
https://pkgs.org/download/autoconf-archive
Marc
PandaResampler 0.2.0 has been released.
./configure: line 16969: syntax error near unexpected token `11,'
./configure: line 16969: `AX_CXX_COMPILE_STDCXX(11, noext, mandatory)'
I'm an absolute NOOB re. autotools...
Ciao,
4:41 p.m.
On Sun, Jun 09, 2024 at 09:23:28AM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Le 2024-06-09 à 05 h 51, Fons Adriaensen a écrit :
I should have a fully up-to-date autotools. It works with
all other things that I needed it for.
In what way should old macros solve the issue, taking into
account that this is not 'old' software ?
And what means 'installing' those macros - Where should
they go ?
Sorry if I seem a bit sceptical... Each time I try to
understand how the autotools are supposed to work I read
things like 'This file contains dirty hacks to make XXX
work' and similar statements. It really escapes me why
such a mess is still supposed to be the 'right way' to
do things...
Ciao,
--
FA
On Sun, Jun 09, 2024 at 09:50:27AM +0200, Stefan
Westerfeld wrote:
Install old autoconf macros:
https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf-archive/
https://pkgs.org/download/autoconf-archive PandaResampler 0.2.0 has been released.
./configure: line 16969: syntax error near unexpected token `11,'
./configure: line 16969: `AX_CXX_COMPILE_STDCXX(11, noext, mandatory)'
I'm an absolute NOOB re. autotools...
Ciao,
5:55 p.m.
Le 2024-06-09 à 10 h 41, Fons Adriaensen a écrit :
On Sun, Jun 09, 2024 at 09:23:28AM -0400, Marc
Lavallée wrote:
It's the first time I use this collection of macros. I discovered it
while trying to fix the issue.
Le 2024-06-09 à 05 h 51, Fons Adriaensen a
écrit :
I should have a fully up-to-date
autotools. It works with
all other things that I needed it for. On Sun, Jun 09, 2024 at 09:50:27AM +0200, Stefan
Westerfeld wrote:
Install old autoconf macros:
https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf-archive/
https://pkgs.org/download/autoconf-archive PandaResampler 0.2.0 has been released.
./configure: line 16969: syntax error near unexpected token `11,'
./configure: line 16969: `AX_CXX_COMPILE_STDCXX(11, noext, mandatory)'
I'm an absolute NOOB re. autotools...
Ciao, In what way should old macros solve the issue, taking
into
account that this is not 'old' software ?
What's old are some macros in the collection; using the word "old" was
useless. For the specific error you reported, the required macro is
ax_cxx_compile_stdcxx.m4. Other macros (from the collection) are
probably required (I did not check).
And what means 'installing' those macros -
Where should
they go ?
Where autoconf-archive (and the packaging system) wants them to be
installed; on my Debian 12 system, they are installed in /usr/share/aclocal/
The collection of collections:
http://mirror.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/gnu/autoconf-archive/
Sorry if I seem a bit sceptical... Each time I try to
understand how the autotools are supposed to work I read
things like 'This file contains dirty hacks to make XXX
work' and similar statements. It really escapes me why
such a mess is still supposed to be the 'right way' to
do things...
There's always better ways. :-)
Marc
Ciao,
11:34 p.m.
On Sun, Jun 09, 2024 at 11:55:41AM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote:
For the specific error you reported, the required
macro is
ax_cxx_compile_stdcxx.m4.
Thanks for the clear info.
Requiring C++11 seems like nothing really esoteric, so why
doesn't a standard autotools installation have this macro ?
And if it isn't standard, shouldn't it be provided in the m4
dir of the project (there are some others there) ?
Ciao,
--
FA
10 Jun
10 Jun
12:47 a.m.
Le 2024-06-09 à 17 h 34, Fons Adriaensen a écrit :
On Sun, Jun 09, 2024 at 11:55:41AM -0400, Marc
Lavallée wrote:
The other required macro is ax_check_compile_flag.m4
Except the macros are not required... Here's how to avoid them:
Add this line at beginning of Makefile.am :
AM_CXXFLAGS = -std=c++11 -Wall
In configure.ac, delete sections titled:
# need c++11 mode
# use -Wall
The software can then be configured without autoconf-archive.
For the specific error you reported, the required
macro is
ax_cxx_compile_stdcxx.m4.
Thanks for the clear info.
Requiring C++11 seems like nothing really esoteric, so why
doesn't a standard autotools installation have this macro ? And if it isn't standard, shouldn't it be
provided in the m4
dir of the project (there are some others there) ?
The m4 directory is generated by autoconf.
Marc
Ciao,
3:16 a.m.
On 6/9/24 15:47, Marc Lavallée wrote:
The other required macro is ax_check_compile_flag.m4
Why use GNU Tools when there are better options: cmake and meson?
cmake, for example, just works. It is very stable, and is powering build
of thousands of projects without the need to write or have one line of
shell or m4 macros.
Why do people still insist on GNU Tools?
Yuri
3:31 a.m.
On 2024-06-10 03:16, Yuri wrote:
On 6/9/24 15:47, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Why do people still insist on GNU Tools?
mostly to aid cross compilation. It is still the option that sucks least
for libraries, notably to specify which symbols to expose in a cross
platform library. Though meson is catching up.
--
robin
2:35 p.m.
Hi!
Am 10.06.24 um 03:31 schrieb Robin Gareus:
On 2024-06-10 03:16, Yuri wrote:
Yes, I can only speak for myself here, but I've been building SpectMorph
with a MXE cross compile for Windows and normal autotools builds for
Linux/macOS for many years now and stuff just works. So I use autotools
for all projects so I don't have to learn multiple tools.
But maybe meson/cmake did catch up in the meantime, I'd have to re-evaluate.
Cu... Stefan
--
Stefan Westerfeld, http://space.twc.de/~stefan
On 6/9/24 15:47, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Why do people still insist on GNU Tools?
mostly to aid cross compilation. It is still the option that sucks least
for libraries, notably to specify which symbols to expose in a cross
platform library. Though meson is catching up.
2:31 p.m.
Hi!
Am 09.06.24 um 11:51 schrieb Fons Adriaensen:
On Sun, Jun 09, 2024 at 09:50:27AM +0200, Stefan
Westerfeld wrote:
Well in that case you can simply download the final tarball:
https://github.com/swesterfeld/pandaresampler/releases/download/0.2.0/panda…
This includes configure and doesn't need any fancy dependencies.
However, right now the way this has been designed you really only want
to copy the stuff from the lib/ directory into whatever project you have
and just include pandaresampler.hh from there. See:
https://github.com/swesterfeld/pandaresampler/issues/1
So you really don't need autotools at the moment, just use the sources
as is.
Cu... Stefan
--
Stefan Westerfeld, http://space.twc.de/~stefan
PandaResampler 0.2.0 has been released.
./configure: line 16969: syntax error near unexpected token `11,'
./configure: line 16969: `AX_CXX_COMPILE_STDCXX(11, noext, mandatory)'
I'm an absolute NOOB re. autotools...
Ciao,
5:39 p.m.
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 02:31:40PM +0200, Stefan Westerfeld wrote:
Well in that case you can simply download the final
tarball:
Meanwhile I got things working with the changes that Marc suggested.
The filters only attenuate 6 dB at half the sample rate.
Is that intentional ?
Ciao,
--
FA
6:48 p.m.
Hi!
Am 10.06.24 um 17:39 schrieb Fons Adriaensen:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 02:31:40PM +0200, Stefan
Westerfeld wrote:
Yes, the tradeoff here is that if we keep every other sample exactly as
is while upsampling, there is less work to do, but yes, this also means
only 6dB at half the sample rate.
Still for oversampling a saturation effect or similar it should be "good
enough" while from a performance point of view a lot better than other
resamplers (would still have to benchmark this to prove it, though).
Cu... Stefan
--
Stefan Westerfeld, http://space.twc.de/~stefan
Well in that case you can simply download the
final tarball:
Meanwhile I got things working with the changes that Marc suggested.
The filters only attenuate 6 dB at half the sample rate.
Is that intentional ?
110
days inactive
111
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
12 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Fons Adriaensen -
Marc Lavallée -
Robin Gareus -
Stefan Westerfeld -
Yuri