Greetings fellow hackers,
I checked out the project ideas page[1] today and wondered if bionic
was still a desirable choice for porting 9base or if other libraries
like musl or dietlibc might be a better choice here, given the fact
bionic is mainly targeted at ARM (for instance, FORTIFY_SOURCE onl
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:40:27AM +0100, FRIGN wrote:
> Greetings fellow hackers,
>
> I checked out the project ideas page[1] today and wondered if bionic
> was still a desirable choice for porting 9base or if other libraries
> like musl or dietlibc might be a better choice here, given the fact
>
On 20 December 2013 10:40, FRIGN wrote:
> Greetings fellow hackers,
>
> I checked out the project ideas page[1] today and wondered if bionic
> was still a desirable choice for porting 9base or if other libraries
> like musl or dietlibc might be a better choice here, given the fact
> bionic is main
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:52:52 +0100
Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>
> musl is the way to go.
>
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:51:20 +
sin wrote:
>
> Personally, I'd go with musl. What is your plan at the moment?
>
Thanks for the quick response!
I planned on going for musl, too. It seems to be the best
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 11:05:00AM +0100, FRIGN wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:51:20 +
> sin wrote:
> >
> > Personally, I'd go with musl. What is your plan at the moment?
> >
>
> I planned on going for musl, too. It seems to be the best option,
> especially because we're planning to link
Is there any remaining good c++ compiler/runtime which can
boostrap using a C compiler/minimal runtime?
Since its 4.8 version, gcc cannot bootstrap with a C
compiler/minimal runtime, it needs a c++ compiler and runtime.
Making gcc 4.7 series the last "clean" gcc.
I heard about openwatcom (but it
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:06:03 +
sin wrote:
>
> Are you planning on porting 9base only for the moment or are you thinking
> of doing general sta.li work? A build system for sta.li would be awesome
> to have.
>
I am following the development of stali very actively, however having
trouble find
Hi all,
Attached is a patch which gives st the ability to spit out its current
screen text to another program. This can be added under shortcuts in
config.h, e.g.:
static Shortcut shortcuts[] = {
...
{ MODKEY, 'u', externalpipe, { .s = "xurls | dmenu -l 10 | xargs open"
} },
};
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:53:11PM +0100, FRIGN wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:06:03 +
> sin wrote:
> >
> > Are you planning on porting 9base only for the moment or are you thinking
> > of doing general sta.li work? A build system for sta.li would be awesome
> > to have.
> >
>
> Looking a
Greetings.
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:27:24 +0100 Rob wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Attached is a patch which gives st the ability to spit out its current
> screen text to another program. This can be added under shortcuts in
> config.h, e.g.:
>
>
> static Shortcut shortcuts[] = {
> ...
> { MOD
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> There is also the question of finding a new C99 optimizing
> compiler written properly in C of course.
>
> tinycc is interesting. It would require just a few basic
> optimization passes to make it a reasonable alternative to gcc.
>
> There
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:49:43 +0100
Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> Is there any remaining good c++ compiler/runtime which can
> boostrap using a C compiler/minimal runtime?
>
> Since, it's near impossible to re-write/unroll all the
> "mandatory" c++ components in C quickly (harfbuzz,
> gecko/webkit...
Tcc is actively maintained. Just check the mailing list or the git repo.
> On 20 Dec 2013, at 16:35, Paul Onyschuk wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:49:43 +0100
> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
>> Is there any remaining good c++ compiler/runtime which can
>> boostrap using a C compiler/minimal ru
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 04:35:36PM +0100, Paul Onyschuk wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:49:43 +0100
> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
> > Is there any remaining good c++ compiler/runtime which can
> > boostrap using a C compiler/minimal runtime?
> >
> > Since, it's near impossible to re-write/unroll a
Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> I’ve been curious about libfirm and cparser but haven't looked at them
> closely yet.
I did work a bit with cparser/libfirm and found the following:
* It took about 2 times longer to compile than gcc
* There was no x64 support yet
* It is not developed very actively, a
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 08:22:03AM -0700, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > There is also the question of finding a new C99 optimizing
> > compiler written properly in C of course.
> >
> > tinycc is interesting. It would require just a few bas
Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> Since its 4.8 version, gcc cannot bootstrap with a C
> compiler/minimal runtime, it needs a c++ compiler and runtime.
> Making gcc 4.7 series the last "clean" gcc.
I think it is amusing that you think that gcc 4.7 is clean and good,
because it is written in C. From my un
On 20/12/2013, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> That's very bad. Linux kernel devs have not accepted patches to
> allow compilation with alternative C compilers??
Well, Linus is no gcc fan [1], so they might, if a ready alternative
were available.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/11/28/206
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 11:36:17AM -0500, Bobby Powers wrote:
> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > Since its 4.8 version, gcc cannot bootstrap with a C
> > compiler/minimal runtime, it needs a c++ compiler and runtime.
> > Making gcc 4.7 series the last "clean" gcc.
>
> I think it is amusing that you thi
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:31:26 +0100
Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
> Oh! What openbsd uses for its man page terminal renderer? I'm
> stuck with the buggy heirloom tools.
>
Mandoc aka mdocml [1].
>
> ARM64 is on its way, which will require a backport in gcc 4.7.x.
>
We will see how it turns out. If
(Wondering about the topic, no idea why one would want
to use C++ anyway… but… *shrug*)
Sylvain BERTRAND dixit:
>> This is valid question on other hand e.g. base OpenBSD is C++ free for
>> some time AFAIK (after the removal of groff). Idea of minimal set of
Same for MirBSD (removal of GNU groff
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 06:12:45PM +0100, Paul Onyschuk wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:31:26 +0100
> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
> >
> > Oh! What openbsd uses for its man page terminal renderer? I'm
> > stuck with the buggy heirloom tools.
> >
>
> Mandoc aka mdocml [1].
Thanks. I'll see how it c
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:26:42 + (UTC)
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
> Oh, they’re buggy? Damn. I had hoped for a ditroff
> implementation eventually.
>
Here [1] you can find links/references to every existing *roff
implementation. Still that doesn't leave many options.
Troff from Plan9 is inte
Paul Onyschuk wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:49:43 +0100
Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
There is also the question of finding a new C99 optimizing
compiler written properly in C of course.
Anything else?
On one hand, you can use pretty old GCC and most of C codebase will
compile just fine (OpenBSD
Paul Onyschuk dixit:
>(those can be copied from Heirloom or from older version of Groff -
Or my version from AT&T nroff, which got bugfixes in the
else-part of GNU groff specifics. I’ve got them in CVS as
src/share/tmac/ (not /usr/lib/ but /usr/share/ as per the
standard modern-BSD filesystem hie
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:06:07 + (GMT)
Rob wrote:
>
> I suppose if you can get a stable version of GCC, like you say, the
> platform ABIs aren't going to change, but I can see certain things
> from C11 coming into libraries, such as atomics. Of course glibc
> (should) support all the way back
Hello,
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Plan 9 C compiler. There seems
to be a copy here: https://code.google.com/p/ken-cc/ , it is also
built as part of the Go build process. And I'm sure it is available
elsewhere. Is there something glaring I am missing?
yours,
Bobby
Hi Rob!
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 01:56:15PM +, Rob wrote:
>
> Attached is a patch which gives st the ability to spit out its current
> screen text to another program. This can be added under shortcuts in
> config.h, e.g.:
>
>
> static Shortcut shortcuts[] = {
> ...
> { MODKEY, 'u
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 08:21:34PM +0100, Alexander Huemer wrote:
> Hi Rob!
>
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 01:56:15PM +, Rob wrote:
> >
> > Attached is a patch which gives st the ability to spit out its current
> > screen text to another program. This can be added under shortcuts in
> > config.h
Bobby Powers dixit:
>I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Plan 9 C compiler. There seems
Hm, does it support something other than ECOFF output now?
The assembler part is also very foreign…
I’ve also got one more: nwcc (Nils Weller’s C compiler).
bye,
//mirabilos
--
In traditional syntax ' i
Alexander Huemer wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 08:21:34PM +0100, Alexander Huemer wrote:
Hi Rob!
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 01:56:15PM +, Rob wrote:
Attached is a patch which gives st the ability to spit out its current
screen text to another program.
IMHO it makes sense here to use `xar
> “Firm is a C-library that provides a graph-based intermediate
> representation, optimizations, and assembly code generation suitable
> for use in compilers.”
>
I don't know if this is useful for this topic, but I have written a
parser for C that can be used as the base for some project.
Regard
I want to mention my simple mk-based package building system [1]. It is
not totally complete but builds packages fine both for my local system
and for ARM-based embedded system.
1. https://github.com/gravicappa/spmk
Rob wrote:
> Yeah, based it off url-select, love that feature. urxvt takes 8 seconds
> or so to open on my laptop, so necessity is the mother of invention and
> all that.
Configure with --disable-everything and use urxvtd. Faster (and more
stable) than st for me.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 08:05:15PM +, Rob wrote:
> Anyway, glad you've found it useful, it's been pushed to the wiki with
> your modification now too.
Nice. Thanks.
Kind regards,
-Alex
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 09:43:46PM +0100, koneu wrote:
> Faster (and more stable) than st for me.
Seems like a very good reason to improve st…
Kind regards,
-Alex
koneu wrote:
Rob wrote:
Yeah, based it off url-select, love that feature. urxvt takes 8 seconds
or so to open on my laptop, so necessity is the mother of invention and
all that.
Configure with --disable-everything and use urxvtd. Faster (and more
stable) than st for me.
Wow, it is pretty sna
Quoth Rob:
> Attached is a patch which gives st the ability to spit out its current
> screen text to another program.
Cool, I made a (likely far less competent) patch doing the same
thing 2.5 years ago. http://lists.suckless.org/dev/1108/9198.html
So yes, I like the idea :)
I just read this message by an OpenBSD developer on the prevalence of
strlcpy in the OpenBSD ports tree:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=138733933417096&w=2
I'd like to know what the opinion here is of these functions. I've so
far avoided them, but it seems like there's an argument to be made
On 20/12/2013, Rob wrote:
> https://github.com/bobrippling/ucc-c-compiler
Why are you rewriting libc?
40 matches
Mail list logo
