"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-list&m=141612991809812&w=2
An
On November 24, 2014 6:35:51 AM CET, Markus Wichmann 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,
> 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
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 s
> Am 24.11.2014 um 09:44 schrieb Anthony J. Bentley :
>
> "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
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.
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:
On 24 November 2014 at 11:42, v4hn 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'
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:01:13AM +0100, koneu wrote:
> On November 24, 2014 6:35:51 AM CET, Markus Wichmann 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 ... undefi
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:05:29 +0100
Markus Wichmann 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'
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
On 24 November 2014 at 15:44, koneu 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 th
On 24 November 2014 at 15:46, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> On 24 November 2014 at 15:44, koneu 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
>> w
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
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 th
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 cau
use the filth web browser, that one will run mplayer for all html5 video.
use the filth player, that one will run mplayer for all html5 video.
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
On Mon 24 Nov 2014 at 12:47:30 PDT Calvin Morrison wrote:
On 24 November 2014 at 11:42, v4hn 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 inc
On 24 November 2014 at 17:10, Charlie Kester wrote:
> On Mon 24 Nov 2014 at 12:47:30 PDT Calvin Morrison wrote:
>>
>> On 24 November 2014 at 11:42, v4hn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:20:44PM +, Henrique Lengler wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > What is the situation of GCC, is it b
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 mor
sorry, third attempt: "fifth browser"
I think most of these threads could be avoided if we make the creation
of new threads cost money.
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?
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
>
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 stuf
On 24 November 2014 at 23:10, Charlie Kester wrote:
> On Mon 24 Nov 2014 at 12:47:30 PDT Calvin Morrison wrote:
>> On 24 November 2014 at 11:42, v4hn 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
28 matches
Mail list logo
