Re: [dev] GCC situation
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff writes: I believe it is not actively developed for several years, and it seems to have lost its momentum. It's certainly not active, but neither is it completely dead. Actually, they just branched a new release beta. http://marc.info/?l=pcc-listm=141612991809812w=2 Another interesting C project is libfirm+cparser. -- Anthony J. Bentley
Re: [dev] GCC situation
On November 24, 2014 6:35:51 AM CET, Markus Wichmann nullp...@gmx.net wrote: that this asumption removes most overflow checking code. This behaviour is a pro, not a con, of GCC. If you rely on undefined behaviour to check for ... well ... undefined behaviour there is a compiler flag to enable it. something, but... well, the problem is, most code out there is not strictly conforming to the C standard. Fix the code instead of breaking the compiler. By now, the only thing that really bugs me is that GCC's optimizers make code undebuggable. -O0 and -g are your best friends.
Re: [dev] [dwm][PATCH] added support for _NET_SUPPORTING_WM_CHECK
Hi, Hi Anselm, Are you sure this hint requires to be set on both, the client win and the root win? This looks very odd to me. I'm sure about that yes [1]. What I'm not sure about, though, is on which window it has to be set. Should it be set (as I did) on the current focused window, or on a unique arbitrary window created by the WM as stated (which dwm hasn't) ? Because there's also the _NET_WM_NAME of this window that should be set to the WM name. Any insight welcome ! [1]: http://standards.freedesktop.org/wm-spec/latest/ar01s03.html#idm139870830066480
Re: [dev] suckless assembly at 31C3
Hello, There may be 4 till 6 people at the suckless assembly. I created an assembly for us. If there are more people out there, just come, meet and hack with us. If you want to stay longer please create an wiki accout at the 31C3-Wiki and set you assembly status to ours. So I could adopt the space we need. I also wrote an announcement at the suckless website. thanks, younix
Re: [dev] GCC situation
Am 24.11.2014 um 09:44 schrieb Anthony J. Bentley anth...@cathet.us: Dmitrij D. Czarkoff writes: I believe it is not actively developed for several years, and it seems to have lost its momentum. It's certainly not active, but neither is it completely dead. Actually, they just branched a new release beta. http://marc.info/?l=pcc-listm=141612991809812w=2 Another interesting C project is libfirm+cparser. I can add subc[1] and cc500[2] to the list of interesting projects. Regards, Joerg [1] http://www.t3x.org/subc/ [2] http://homepage.ntlworld.com/edmund.grimley-evans/cc500/
Re: [dev] GCC situation
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:03:04PM +0100, Joerg Jung wrote: I can add subc[1] and cc500[2] to the list of interesting projects. [1] http://www.t3x.org/subc/ [2] http://homepage.ntlworld.com/edmund.grimley-evans/cc500/ +1 for subc. His book is excellent as well.
Re: [dev] GCC situation
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:20:44PM +, Henrique Lengler wrote: Hi, What is the situation of GCC, is it bloated? On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:35:52PM +, doa379 wrote: There's an incredible amount of spam and OT on this list isn't there! Indeed. v4hn pgpxKlkM6DhL4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] GCC situation
On 24 November 2014 at 11:42, v4hn m...@v4hn.de wrote: On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:20:44PM +, Henrique Lengler wrote: Hi, What is the situation of GCC, is it bloated? On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:35:52PM +, doa379 wrote: There's an incredible amount of spam and OT on this list isn't there! Last time I checked this list is for general dev and general discussion. Check yo privilege
Re: [dev] GCC situation
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:01:13AM +0100, koneu wrote: On November 24, 2014 6:35:51 AM CET, Markus Wichmann nullp...@gmx.net wrote: that this asumption removes most overflow checking code. This behaviour is a pro, not a con, of GCC. If you rely on undefined behaviour to check for ... well ... undefined behaviour there is a compiler flag to enable it. Buried in the manpage somewhere. But sure, it's there. Somewhere below the architecture options for the VAX, and somewhere in the middle of all the other optimizers. And that's if you even remember what to search for. something, but... well, the problem is, most code out there is not strictly conforming to the C standard. Fix the code instead of breaking the compiler. Assume I'm compiling something like sabotage or LFS. I have about 20 packages to build to get a remotely usable system. And in that situation compiling with -O3 will result in some broken binaries. Somewhere. Why? Because in the thousands of code lines somewhere there is a bug. I know I won't look for it. It is unlikely I'll even be able to identify the malfunctioning component. All I'll know is that something doesn't work, and if it is something in those early components it's likely that just something breaks and then the whole system doesn't work. Great! OTOH I could just only use suckless software and write everything that's missing myself. But you'll have to forgive me for wanting to connect to my WiFi sometime before next year (because I've read wpa-supplicant, and I don't like it, but I lack the expertise to rewrite it sucklessly myself). By now, the only thing that really bugs me is that GCC's optimizers make code undebuggable. -O0 and -g are your best friends. Yes, it's the -O0 that bothers me there. I'd like to debug the code that actually runs in production. One big problem is that at -O3 almost every value is optimized out. Now, all that means is that no register or memory location with that exact variable exists, but from the code I know that clearly _some_ value based on the variables and parameters has to be saved somewhere. But gdb offers no way to display those. I know that with optimization control flow may be very different from the flow I wrote into the source code, but at least let me see my values! But no, so I'll have to put in debug outputs, which of course changes the program, and kills the timing, and if I'm debugging a race condition (in the sucky code I have to write at work) that's exactly what I don't need. Oh, and I'll have to remember to remove them. Ciao, Markus
Re: [dev] GCC situation
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:05:29 +0100 Markus Wichmann nullp...@gmx.net wrote: But no, so I'll have to put in debug outputs, which of course changes the program, and kills the timing, and if I'm debugging a race condition (in the sucky code I have to write at work) that's exactly what I don't need. Oh, and I'll have to remember to remove them. Heisenbugs are a bitch to debug, but often a consequence of bad design. Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN d...@frign.de
Re: [dev] GCC situation
Greetings. Markus Wichmann wrote: compiling with -O3 will result in some broken binaries. Somewhere. Why? Because -O3 is very aggressive and should NOT be used. Especially not when compiling/bootstrapping a system. In most cases it makes things buggier and bigger, in some cases even slower. Use -O2. Yes, it's the -O0 that bothers me there. I'd like to debug the code that actually runs in production. Run -O0 in production then. One big problem is that at -O3 almost every value is optimized out. Yes. the program, and kills the timing, and if I'm debugging a race condition How do debug printfs kill the timing but GDB doesn't? (in the sucky code I have to write at work) that's exactly what I don't Did your employer tell you to use -O3? If yes, quit your job and never look back. need. Oh, and I'll have to remember to remove them. #ifdef DEBUGPRINTFSPLOX printf(value: %#042d, (int)((float)9000.1 + (float)0.9)); #endif Sincerely,
Re: [dev] GCC situation
On 24 November 2014 at 15:44, koneu kone...@googlemail.com wrote: Greetings. Markus Wichmann wrote: compiling with -O3 will result in some broken binaries. Somewhere. Why? Because -O3 is very aggressive and should NOT be used. Especially not when compiling/bootstrapping a system. In most cases it makes things buggier and bigger, in some cases even slower. Use -O2. I've used -O3 for a long time in several projects that are heavily tuned and not noticed any issues. I think there is a large stigma around -O3 but if you just take a few minutes to read about -O3 you'll learn quickly what is safe to use and what could cause problems. You seem like a hater.
Re: [dev] GCC situation
On 24 November 2014 at 15:46, Calvin Morrison mutanttur...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 November 2014 at 15:44, koneu kone...@googlemail.com wrote: Greetings. Markus Wichmann wrote: compiling with -O3 will result in some broken binaries. Somewhere. Why? Because -O3 is very aggressive and should NOT be used. Especially not when compiling/bootstrapping a system. In most cases it makes things buggier and bigger, in some cases even slower. Use -O2. I've used -O3 for a long time in several projects that are heavily tuned and not noticed any issues. I think there is a large stigma around -O3 but if you just take a few minutes to read about -O3 you'll learn quickly what is safe to use and what could cause problems. You seem like a hater. before you FUD, there's lots of good stuff, like vectorization, and my two favorites -finline-functions, which is great for having efficient code, while making sure you code is readable. -funswitch-loops, this is a great optimization which helps deal with stupid programmers
Re: [dev] [surf] web videos idea
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 09:01:07PM -0500, Greg Reagle wrote: I use extension DownloadHelper for Firefox then play movie file with mplayer. You can also inspect the source of the HTML page as the full URL of the video is often there (usually ends with .mp4 or .flv). Many video players will work with an http URL so you don't need an extra download step. Thank you guys, but I'm looking for something automatic. Looks like it doesn't exist but would be cool to have something like this. Also I don't care about youtube videos or any other type of video system that doesn't provide their videos as video files, I think this is wrong and sucks a lot. So my interest is in direct video links and pages with html5 video tag, that also point to a video file. Regards, -- Henrique Lengler
Re: [dev] [surf] web videos idea
Henrique Lengler wrote:
Thank you guys, but I'm looking for something automatic. Looks like it
doesn't exist but would be cool to have something like this.
Also I don't care about youtube videos or any other type of video system
that doesn't provide their videos as video files, I think this is wrong
and sucks a lot.
So my interest is in direct video links and pages with html5 video tag, that
also point to a video file.
Regards,
There was a script+patch somewhere that would grab an embedded video and
play it with mplayer/mpv/... by pressing a shortcut defined in your
config.def.h of surf, and as long as you disable javascript and plugins,
surf won't play the video by itself.
I can't remember where I found it, but here's the code:
#define WATCH {.v = (char *[]){ /bin/sh, -c, \
st -e \
yt $(xprop -id $0 _SURF_URI | cut -d \\\ -f 2), \
winid, NULL } }
[...]
{ MODKEY, GDK_w, spawn, WATCH },
with yt being something like the attached script.
#!/bin/mksh
# format=-f34 # leave empty for default
player=mpv --quiet --geometry=50%:50% --keep-open
tmpdir=$HOME/yt
url=$1
filepath=$tmpdir/$(youtube-dl --id --get-filename $format $url)
youtube-dl -c -o $filepath $format $url
print $! $filepath.$$.pid
while [ ! -r $filepath ] [ ! -r $filepath.part ]; do
printf '%s' Waiting for youtube-dl...
sleep 3
done
[ -r $filepath.part ] $player $filepath.part || $player $filepath
kill $($filepath.$$.pid)
rm $filepath.$$.pid
Re: [dev] GCC situation
Greetings. Calvin Morrison wrote: I've used -O3 for a long time in several projects that are heavily tuned and not noticed any issues. I think there is a large stigma around -O3 but if you just take a few minutes to read about -O3 you'll learn quickly what is safe to use and what could cause problems. You seem like a hater. I might be a hater. If you write your code to work around the optimizations enabled by -O3 then that's fine, but don't expect anything else to work with -O3. Most importantly, don't compile your whole system with -O3 or you will have much fun. @Markus: Yes, my CFLAGS are usually along the lines of -O2 -finline-functions -ftree-vectorize. For critical parts like init or the likes I add -fstack-protector.
Re: [dev] [surf] web videos idea
use the filth web browser, that one will run mplayer for all html5 video.
Re: [dev] [surf] web videos idea
use the filth player, that one will run mplayer for all html5 video.
Re: [dev] [surf] web videos idea
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:31:30PM +0100, hiro wrote: use the filth web browser, that one will run mplayer for all html5 video. I can't find anything related to filth web browser on google. Regards, -- Henrique Lengler
[dev] Does suckless need a separate list for general discussion?
On Mon 24 Nov 2014 at 12:47:30 PDT Calvin Morrison wrote: On 24 November 2014 at 11:42, v4hn m...@v4hn.de wrote: On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:20:44PM +, Henrique Lengler wrote: Hi, What is the situation of GCC, is it bloated? On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:35:52PM +, doa379 wrote: There's an incredible amount of spam and OT on this list isn't there! Last time I checked this list is for general dev and general discussion. Check yo privilege If there are enough people who want to keep this dev list restricted to discussion of proposed patches or other concrete work on suckless projects, perhaps there should be a separate list for more general discussion? The suckless approach is always going to provoke some amount of philosophical discussion and questions about non-suckless projects like GCC. Those questions and discussions are only occurring here because there's nowhere else for them to go.
Re: [dev] Does suckless need a separate list for general discussion?
On 24 November 2014 at 17:10, Charlie Kester corky1...@comcast.net wrote: On Mon 24 Nov 2014 at 12:47:30 PDT Calvin Morrison wrote: On 24 November 2014 at 11:42, v4hn m...@v4hn.de wrote: On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:20:44PM +, Henrique Lengler wrote: Hi, What is the situation of GCC, is it bloated? On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:35:52PM +, doa379 wrote: There's an incredible amount of spam and OT on this list isn't there! Last time I checked this list is for general dev and general discussion. Check yo privilege If there are enough people who want to keep this dev list restricted to discussion of proposed patches or other concrete work on suckless projects, perhaps there should be a separate list for more general discussion? The suckless approach is always going to provoke some amount of philosophical discussion and questions about non-suckless projects like GCC. Those questions and discussions are only occurring here because there's nowhere else for them to go. this is off topic
Re: [dev] Does suckless need a separate list for general discussion?
Quoth Charlie Kester: If there are enough people who want to keep this dev list restricted to discussion of proposed patches or other concrete work on suckless projects, perhaps there should be a separate list for more general discussion? No, I think most people here like the mixture of more general / philosophical and code stuff. I don't follow the hackers list, but I really like the patches and comments I see being here, in the same place as other discussion. There are threads I'm not that interested in, but I just skip them.
Re: [dev] [surf] web videos idea
sorry, third attempt: fifth browser
Re: [dev] Does suckless need a separate list for general discussion?
I think most of these threads could be avoided if we make the creation of new threads cost money.
Re: [dev] Does suckless need a separate list for general discussion?
On 24 November 2014 at 18:35, hiro 23h...@gmail.com wrote: I think most of these threads could be avoided if we make the creation of new threads cost money. I think we can just simplify it even more, why just reuse one thread for all conversations?
Re: [dev] Does suckless need a separate list for general discussion?
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:23:03PM +, Nick wrote: Quoth Charlie Kester: If there are enough people who want to keep this dev list restricted to discussion of proposed patches or other concrete work on suckless projects, perhaps there should be a separate list for more general discussion? No, I think most people here like the mixture of more general / philosophical and code stuff. I don't follow the hackers list, but I really like the patches and comments I see being here, in the same place as other discussion. There are threads I'm not that interested in, but I just skip them. The hackers list is not interesting for reviewing patches per se because at that point they have already been applied. It is mostly for providing clarification to other suckless contributors. The general argument is that dev@ is a relatively low volume list and having a separate list does not seem to be fruitful. I'd personally prefer to have a low volume list full of patches that are yet to be merged than a list intermixed with random _non-technical_ discussion about compilers, distros, tmux vs dvtm and other such mostly boring stuff.
Re: [dev] Does suckless need a separate list for general discussion?
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:56:41PM +, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: I'd personally prefer to have a low volume list full of patches that are yet to be merged than a list intermixed with random _non-technical_ discussion about compilers, distros, tmux vs dvtm and other such mostly boring stuff. Is creating email filters considered suckful now? ;) -- Ivan Colona Delalande
Re: [dev] Does suckless need a separate list for general discussion?
On 24 November 2014 at 23:10, Charlie Kester corky1...@comcast.net wrote: On Mon 24 Nov 2014 at 12:47:30 PDT Calvin Morrison wrote: On 24 November 2014 at 11:42, v4hn m...@v4hn.de wrote: On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:20:44PM +, Henrique Lengler wrote: What is the situation of GCC, is it bloated? On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:35:52PM +, doa379 wrote: There's an incredible amount of spam and OT on this list isn't there! Last time I checked this list is for general dev and general discussion. Check yo privilege If there are enough people who want to keep this dev list restricted to discussion of proposed patches or other concrete work on suckless projects, perhaps there should be a separate list for more general discussion? No, multiple lists suck. I don't think that the discussions about the OS and GCC are totally offtopic, though to some they might be spam of course. dev@ isn't only about concrete projects, but also about general suckless philosophy. This has been the case for years. And there were multiple attempts to introduce half a dozen of lists... in the end only hackers@ and dev@ have significant traffic. Best regards, Anselm
