World: r4wp
[#Red] Red language group
older newer | first last |
Andreas 25-Feb-2012 [63] | i'm pretty sure none of that is needed for actual glibc setup |
DocKimbel 25-Feb-2012 [64x2] | New commit pushed to `libc-init` branch, new simplified and more conforming way to init libc (at least I hope). |
I need to add support for Syllable, I have the right doc from Kaj for that, so no problem. For Darwin, I would need the right stack layout description on starting a new process, I haven't found yet a recent and official description for that, just a lost page in google's cache from 2009: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4zQ0NwtOKdsJ:blogs.embarcadero.com/eboling/2009/10/13/5620+MacOSX+stack+layout+on+start&cd=4&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=fr | |
Andreas 25-Feb-2012 [66x2] | from that doc, the osx stack layout looks identical to linux/elf |
(so that should be easy to try) | |
DocKimbel 25-Feb-2012 [68] | identical from the main() POV, but I'm not sure that's the right kernel stack layout before libc is initialized. |
Andreas 25-Feb-2012 [69] | in that doc, it's not describing the stack for main() but the stack layout as setup for the entry point ("_start") |
DocKimbel 26-Feb-2012 [70x2] | Yes, that's what I am after. |
_start emulation | |
Andreas 26-Feb-2012 [72x2] | yep |
so osx looks just like linux :) | |
DocKimbel 26-Feb-2012 [74] | Okay, libc-init is now working fine for Linux and conforming to Gcc ABI. Once again, man has won over the machine, but I wonder how many neurons were killed both in my and Andreas brain during the battle...;-) |
GrahamC 26-Feb-2012 [75] | the reverse ... you probably grew a few :) |
Kaj 26-Feb-2012 [76x2] | It's a loosing battle |
The documentation seems to describe that when you write a floating point constant, it will be a float32! if it fits. However, it turns out that it is interpreted as float64! | |
Andreas 26-Feb-2012 [78x3] | Indeed, the spec is misleading here. All literals are float64!, float32! has no literal form. |
So the only way to construct a float32! from a literal, is by casting (`as float32!`) from a float64! literal. | |
(So it's propapbly best to remove the "syntax" section in the float32! spec and add a note describing the above.) | |
DocKimbel 26-Feb-2012 [81x2] | Agreed. |
Doc fixed. | |
Kaj 26-Feb-2012 [83] | I found another freak bug |
DocKimbel 26-Feb-2012 [84] | ah? |
Kaj 26-Feb-2012 [85] | In the tracker |
DocKimbel 26-Feb-2012 [86] | Kaj: proper libc init code added for Syllable. It works fine on my Syllable VM. |
Kaj 26-Feb-2012 [87] | That is great, thanks! |
Pekr 27-Feb-2012 [88] | Doc - so your sister tweets about the Red development? Cool :-) |
MagnussonC 27-Feb-2012 [89] | Why not delete the Twitter message if it was an error? |
GrahamC 27-Feb-2012 [90] | Good movie? |
Andreas 27-Feb-2012 [91] | Behold, an OpenGL triangle rendered by a Red/System program: http://earl.strain.at/share/reds-opengl-triangle-20120227.png |
GrahamC 27-Feb-2012 [92x2] | GUI next? |
Can we view the code that does this? | |
Andreas 27-Feb-2012 [94x2] | Of course: https://gist.github.com/d3b0e5c6fdbc4f19ff7a |
(2/3 inline binding code and the rest is very plain OpenGL and, yuck, GLUT.) | |
PeterWood 27-Feb-2012 [96] | Looks good and the code looks some much easier on the eye than C to me. |
GrahamC 27-Feb-2012 [97x2] | so what to add to be able to click on something and get a calback working? |
a few 1000s of LOC :) | |
DocKimbel 27-Feb-2012 [99] | That's where dialects can shine: abstract low-level APIs. |
TomBon 27-Feb-2012 [100] | andreas, cool! perhaps time to add GLFW? ;-) |
Andreas 27-Feb-2012 [101] | tombon: would most likely be better than glut :) |
TomBon 27-Feb-2012 [102] | events for free :)) |
Andreas 27-Feb-2012 [103] | ah, events are "for free" in glut as well :) |
TomBon 27-Feb-2012 [104] | as clean as in GLFW? argh.... ;-) |
Andreas 28-Feb-2012 [105x3] | didn't say anything about clean :) |
Just updated the Gist, you can now rotate using the arrow keys: https://gist.github.com/d3b0e5c6fdbc4f19ff7a | |
(Graham: +10 lines binding, +12 lines reds code) | |
GrahamC 28-Feb-2012 [108] | 2 factors overestimate by me :) |
Andreas 28-Feb-2012 [109x2] | 2 orders of magnitude! :) |
But then, you asked for clicking, and I only gave you typing :) | |
GrahamC 28-Feb-2012 [111x2] | yes what I meant ... |
10 x 10 x is two factors? | |
older newer | first last |