this could be it (from


On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 7:30 PM, siris phi <> wrote:
Thanks for those answers. Of course, int64 is just a type, not an architecture. Too much jumping from a windows 64bit to gentoo 32 and 10+ hr work days...gets one a little confused.

I'll have to dig into ffado internals a bit more, which should just help me get a better grasp overall.

>>>Just tell the compiler to use 64 bits for that int and it will do

This would mean altering the data type of the c++ variable, not just changing the value in the text config file, correct? Or is there some special syntax that ffado will understand. I'm assuming the config file is python syntax, because it pretty much is, except for the semi-colons, and since ffado-mixer is python as well, assuming its a safe guess.

Anyway, work has been a nightmare, so alot less progress has been done than I had anticipated, but hopefully next week will be more fruitful.

On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Arnold Krille <> wrote:

On Sunday 27 December 2009 01:10:11 siris phi wrote:
> ieee1394.isomanager.isotask_activity_timeout_usecs, which online docs says
> is int64. Im not on a 64 bit machine,

If it is int64, it is int64. No matter what architecture you are on...
And don't worry about the "portability", ffado is mainly developed on 32bit
machines, so I seriously doubt that the code is not working and not even
compiling. Just tell the compiler to use 64 bits for that int and it will do

> and am somewhat confused because
>  isn't the config file in python syntax? How does ffado decide what type it
>  is?

It is read from a text-file, right? If its integer, its integer. If 64bit are
needed to store the value, it depends on the variable it is stored in whether
the value gets truncated or not. In this case not because the variable is

And the configuration-file is read both by C++ libffado and by python ffado-

>  I've played with a handleful of values, but no luck, so I figured I'd
>  ask experts.

Unless you have tried _really_ big values that are only in the range of 64bit
integers and it seems like it truncated the value, your problem is not with
the bit-depth of the variable. Probably your problem is more with the value
itself. Unfortunately I can't help you there.


This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community
Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support
A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy
Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers
FFADO-devel mailing list