On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Nicolas Bercher wrote:
> On 27/03/2013 15:18, Comeau At9Fans wrote:
>>... I seem to be
>> past this part of things as I just tried mv'ing on Plan 9 itself
>> rather than the host system and that seems to be letting x.c be seen
>>
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:33 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Wed Mar 27 08:26:04 EDT 2013, comeauat9f...@gmail.com wrote:
>>... I tried mv'ing the problem files and then back
>> but same results.
>
> modulo other bugs, dossrv does something kind of interesting.
> if you explictly walk to x.c, you
I'm mounting a FAT32 flashdrive on a RPi. However, it seems that some
sort of legacy 8.3 filename situation is existing. For instance, if I
have a directory containing x.c and a23456789.c that the former is
taken as X.C and the latter is taken as shown. Therefore, to compile
x.c is not possible.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Joel C. Salomon wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:19 PM, dexen deVries
> wrote:
> > #define exit(status) do { exit(status); return 0; } while (0)
> What does kenc do with a void function attempting to return 0?
incompatible types: "VOID" and "INT" for op "RE
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:39 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Thu Feb 21 13:23:26 EST 2013, j...@jfloren.net wrote:
> > I think his mail client is just too world-class, breathtaking,
> > amazing, and fabulous--have you tried it?
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:13 AM, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrot
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:02 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > No, the compiler is simply applying scope rules. Without that inner
> > declaration explicitly overriding the outer declaration--whether
> > static or extern is used-- it will not compile (eg, if you put "static
> > void fn(Outer*);" or
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Charles Forsyth
wrote:
> On 18 February 2013 13:02, Comeau At9Fans wrote:
>
>> seems to be doing is setting up allowing the call to compile and once
>> that is satisfied then the subsequent definition "has" to match it, as
>>
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:38 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> i don't think this should link, since wrongaddr calls
> fn with an Outer* not an Inner*.
> ...
Normally in more mainstream C the nested "static void fn(Outer*);"
declaration would produce a diagnostic and instead what it (the compiler
and
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:03 AM, wrote:
> On Monday, June 11, 2012 6:19:20 AM UTC+8, Comeau At9Fans wrote:
> I preferred android os system, so I brought one piece MK802 mini android
>
> pc from http://miniandroidpc.com. It makes my TV to be a Internet/Smart
>
> TV. So far i
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 6:45 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > Many compilers do just that, however, that said, unless the compiler is
> > prepared for it, since it effectively yields a struct of zero size which
> > normally is a no-go, it could produce bugs involving sizeof,
> initializers,
> > pointe
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Charles Forsyth
wrote:
> Even better might be to do neither: eliminate support for void data, and
> give the declaration a type that doesn't provoke so much discussion.
> It's just a placeholder.
>
> On 1 July 2012 23:32, Charles Forsyth wrote:
>
>> Yes, I was assu
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Charles Forsyth
wrote:
> Yes, I was assuming the same approach as for the existing void data
> declaration, that the structure is given a nominal size,
> for just the reasons you give. (That's what gcc seems to do.)
>
> On 1 July 2012 23:22, C
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Charles Forsyth
wrote:
> instead of trying to make void work as a data type declaration, it might
> be clearer to accept an empty struct.
Many compilers do just that, however, that said, unless the compiler is
prepared for it, since it effectively yields a struct
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 5:25 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> i haven't tracked down thie issue yet, but it appears that ?c
> generate unparsable acid output
>
> ; cat > void.c
> typedef struct PNOTIFY PNOTIFY
>
> struct PNOTIFY {
> voidemptiness;
> };
> ; 8c -a void.c
> void.c:1 not a fun
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> Evaluations of the Sheevaplug in particular revealed it tended to
> overheat badly if you put any significant load on the networking
> components. Heating problems combined with poor quality control would
> be my guess as to why that whole t
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Nick LaForge wrote:
> Sure. But the Sheevaplug (same SoC) is now 3 years old, and it looks
> like the whole 'plug-computer' thing never took off. Since phones
> seem to be the only consistent market for fast Arm SoCs, we're likely
> to see one with usb3 before g
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:07 PM, John Floren wrote:
> ...As for
> anything not based on the supported SoCs, well, until people stop
> sitting on ass saying "boy that would be a nice terminal" and actually
> start PORTING the damn thing, it'll never be more than Yet Another
> 120-message 9fans Thr
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:46 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > I think three including me actually. The drivers factor might only make
> it
> > a good cpu server methinks. I would totally love one as a terminal
> though.
>
> sadly, the 10/100 ethernet is provided through a flakey usb hub
> (http://ww
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Ethan Grammatikidis
wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:19:20 -0400
> Comeau At9Fans wrote:
>
> > Ok, so, unless I was asleep at the wheel following these
> > discussions, there's been a few "mini PCs" to come about lately:
>
Ok, so, unless I was asleep at the wheel following these
discussions, there's been a few "mini PCs" to come about lately:
* Raspberry Pi
* Cotton Candy
* Mele A1000
* MK802
We have a small number of the latter (MK802 running Android 4.0,
which claims to have a Allwinner ARM A10 1.5Ghz Cortex-A8 p
Anybody with an ARM Plan 9 willing to run a binary for me? It just emits a
few lines out of output and I promise it is not a virus.
--
Greg Comeau / 4.3.10.1 with C++0xisms now in beta!
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++,
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:03 PM, David du Colombier <0in...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > If I nm /386/lib/libc.a | grep ainc
> >
> > it returns nothing.
>
> Your libc is obviously not up-do-date.
>
> term% nm /n/sources/plan9/386/lib/libc.a | grep ainc
> atom.8: T ainc
>
> See /n/sources/plan9/sys/src/lib
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:34 AM, David du Colombier <0in...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > Ok, linking gives:
> >
> > main: undefined: ainc in main
> >
> > Looks to be a function (which also seems to be undeclared in 5e.c),
> > anybody know where it is located?
>
> It's defined in the libc. You can add it
Ok, linking gives:
main: undefined: ainc in main
Looks to be a function (which also seems to be undeclared in 5e.c), anybody
know where it is located?
--
Greg Comeau / 4.3.10.1 with C++0xisms now in beta!
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compiler
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:36 AM, wrote:
> aiju wrote an arm emulator for 9front some time ago and
> i remember he implemented floating point on it.
>
> might have a look there:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/plan9front/source/browse/sys/src/cmd/5e
Thanks. What's the most sane way of downloading
>From 9vx.OSX if I compile this
#include
#include
void main(void)
{
float f = 99.99;
exits(0);
}
with 5c/5l and then 5i it, it gives:
undefined instruction trap pc #102c inst ed9b0100 class 92
Is floating point supported with 5i?
--
Greg Comeau / 4.3.10.1 with C++0xisms now in beta!
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:44 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> ...
>processor bw >> memory bw ==> smaller integers faster
>memory bw >> processor bw ==> natural integers faster
>
> (this is yet another reason that int_fast* are a half-baked idea.
> how does the compiler know this relati
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:36 AM, dexen deVries wrote:
> On Monday 07 of May 2012 11:27:29 Charles Forsyth wrote:
> > The MIPS, PowerPC and SPARC all grew to 64 bits from 32 bits, so 32 bit
> > quantities
> > (and usually but not always 16 bit and 8 bit quantities) have suitable
> > instructions to
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 9:10 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > Yes, the u{...}int names are important. Those "different names" are
> > normally for other (though obviously related) purposes (conceptually
> > int_exact_*), and the int_least_* and int_fast_* names, usually are built
>
> the int_least_*
I've heard that 64-bit is not an immediate win over 32 for graphics and
such, but then again also heard that 32 bit is not the pits, and that it
more or less becomes a wash. So, in your case, what is is about 32 that
makes it a *significant* win, given that the space would have been used in
either
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Joel C. Salomon wrote:
> On 05/05/2012 05:06 PM, Comeau At9Fans wrote:
> > On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Charles Forsyth wrote:
> >
> > if it's performance you're worried about, for programs that don't
> > car
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Charles Forsyth
wrote:
> if it's performance you're worried about, for programs that don't care
> about width, i'd expect 32 bits at least
> to match performance with 64 bits (if there's a measurable difference).
> for one thing, cache lines will contain
> more valu
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 11:33 AM, dexen deVries wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 of April 2012 15:32:06 erik quanstrom wrote:
> > also, in case you missed it sizeof(int)==sizeof(long)==4 on both 32
> > and 64 bit plan 9, so recompiled programs won't get bigger integers
> > just for the recompiling.
>
>
> p
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Jens Staal wrote:
> I have just hit another "pcc can not initialize bitfields" problem
> with netsurf libcss. If anyone know how to tackle that issue (or if it
> even CAN be tackled) it would be greatly appreciated
>
>From what I recall, it comes up when a bi
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Jens Staal wrote:
> The second issue that I have been meaning to ask the list is about pcc
> and bitfields - are they supported or is this some sort of can of
> worms I have stepped into?
>
Bitfields are allowed to have lots of *-defined behavior, so often they
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Lucio De Re wrote:
> > I may be biased, but still sure some general flavor of Comeau for
> > Plan 9 could be a near term and not expensive endeavor (though it
> > depends upon ones definition of inexpensive too I guess). And Qt
> > definitely has its place in the
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Bakul Shah wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Comeau At9Fans
> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Bakul Shah wrote:
>
> How do you deal with longjmp?
>>
>
> I don't have it in front of me, but I do seem to recall th
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Joel C. Salomon wrote:
> On 01/16/2012 02:03 PM, Bakul Shah wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Greg Comeau
> wrote:
> >> What we do in problematic cases with Comeau is to generate code to
> >> arrange for the allocation of the VLA on the heap. I'm not sayin
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:49 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Mon Jan 16 14:40:41 EST 2012, charles.fors...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > They are compiling C++ which has language-visible exception handling
> > instead.
> >
> > On 16 January 2012 19:03, Bakul Shah wrote:
> >
> > > How do you deal with lon
gt; How do you deal with longjmp?
>>
>>
>> On Jan 16, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Comeau At9Fans
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Bakul Shah wrote:
>>
>>> A frame pointer is needed for C99's variable length arrays but not
>>>
point we're able to detect
that the previous VLA(s) is no longer active and "toss" them.
> On Jan 16, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Comeau At9Fans
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Bakul Shah wrote:
>
>> A frame pointer is needed for C99's variable lengt
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Bakul Shah wrote:
> A frame pointer is needed for C99's variable length arrays but not
> otherwise. Only an issue if ever plan9 C is extended to handle C99 or C1x.
> gcc has to do the right thing even with -fno-frame-pointer.
>
What we do in problematic cases wi
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:41 PM, wrote:
> As readers may remember from a previous thread, I have historically
> been, well, less than enamored with some aspects of the coding style
> used in Plan 9/plan9port. Now that I'm getting into development, I'd
> like to know what coding conventions the P
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Comeau At9Fans wrote:
> Hmm, I downloaded the new 9vx.OSX, recompiled the app, and don't seem to be
> able to get it to fail anymore. Unless this 9vx is known to fix issues such
> as this, I've been around the block enough to be suspect I ma
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Comeau At9Fans wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Russ Cox wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Comeau At9Fans
>> wrote:
>> > The app. 9vx will continue to run after it. It give a little dump
>> thing on
>>
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:46 AM, ron minnich wrote:
> OK, you're working from an old root if you can't find ratrace :-)
>
> 9fs sources, go grab it in sys/src/cmd, build and install it.
>
> ratrace -c your-command-line
>
> ron
> p.s. First thing I do with a new 9vx is get all the sources down and
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Russ Cox wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Comeau At9Fans
> wrote:
> > The app. 9vx will continue to run after it. It give a little dump thing
> on
> > the screen with "1476 The.App fault 0x4 no segment" send to the sh
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Russ Cox wrote:
> On 9vx the entire address space for
> a running process is 256 MB. The heap
> grows up and the stack grows down.
> It is easy to believe you could have blown
> out the stack.
>
Ok.
> Is it just the program you ran that crashed
> or is it all o
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Mathieu Lonjaret wrote:
> maybe slightly relevant:
> http://9fans.net/archive/2010/05/446
> (see also answers from others as well afterwards).
>
>
Thanks, I'll take a look.
- Greg
--
Greg Comeau / 4.3.10.1 with C++0xisms now in beta!
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> h
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:39 PM, ron minnich wrote:
> the app crashes or 9vx blows up?
>
> You might consider ratrace. It helps me a lot with this stuff.
>
9vx can blow up too but not related to this problem, so in this case it's
the app I'm talking about, or at least, appears to be the app. Mig
I have an application that is crashing on Plan 9. Now, it could be a bug in
the code, but in the past, similar problems with the same code base on other
platforms have always been caused by the system stack being blown out, and
in a less rare case, the systems running out of process space. The cr
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Steve Simon wrote:
> Anyone have any pointers to a diff for C code.
>
> I have two libraries, A and B.
>
> B is and expanded and modified version of A and I have been
> asked to extract A from B to build two libraries one
> built on top of the other.
>
I'm unclea
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:04 AM, David du Colombier <0in...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ok, I tried running 9vx for my linux install and it dies. Ubuntu
> > 11.04 fully updated x64_86. I don't know what else info will help.
>
> Are you sure you tried one of the current 9vx repository ([1] or [2]),
> an
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
> Anyone know of such an animal?
I don't recall they specifically list it, but I'd be fairly certain that
Panix would allow it. You'd have to check them out panix.com for details.
--
Greg Comeau / 4.3.10.1 with C++0xisms now in beta!
Com
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 2:27 PM, wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 09:54:28AM +, Greg Comeau wrote:
> >
> > Some more food for thought:
> >
> > "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
> > Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
> > defin
Hi, I've have some curiosity about a few things for a while. The thread
about the web and Plan 9 got me rethinking… It's often touted that Plan 9
is a research OS, and I believe that, and I understand some of the
implications of that (could swear I went to a NYC USENIX(?) meeting at the
foot of t
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:47 PM, errno wrote:
> On Friday, May 06, 2011 03:32:26 PM Comeau At9Fans wrote:
> > How does this change things literally, conceptually and philosophically?
> > Consider this question across the board, for instance, can Plan 9 handle
> > it (whate
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:18 PM, errno wrote:
>
> Quick attempt at damage control, hope it's not too late:
>
> On Friday, May 06, 2011 03:32:26 PM Comeau At9Fans wrote:
> > [...] errno pulls this off. [...] something like FireFox working on Plan
> 9.
> > Let&#x
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 8:59 AM, erik quanstrom
wrote:
> > Do you not think it's possible or worthwhile to have a great(er) desktop
> > (or consumer-oriented embedded device) experience built atop Plan 9?
>
> i'm not 100% sure what the op ment. but one way one could
> read it is that plan 9 is f
59 matches
Mail list logo
