World: r4wp

Yes, we should built it that way in the first place. We only recently 
added building in GUI mode, to avoid a crash with console mode binaries 
when launched from shells other than cmd.exe. (Another bug that needs 
fixing).

But note that most (all?) official RT R3 alpha builds have been GUI 
mode binaries.

Brian, I build the Red examples in both modes, so you can try out 
the effect if you want. MSDOS/console programs can open a window, 
but Windows/GUI apps don't seem to be capable of using stdout, at 
least not to a console they're started from

OK, but I really want to reserve the term "MSDOS" for programs that 
actually run on MSDOS, a still-common embedded systems OS.

Not commonly by MS, but as DOS-compatible platforms.

We know that, but when giving you pointers I have to go by existing 
paths

And my "remerciements" have to go to every direct and indirect contributor 
too (Carl S, KaJ, Peter, Andreas, Ladislav, BrianH, Nick, Maxim, 
Pekr,  Jerry, many guys of the French and other international communities 
too ... name them - there's too much to name all of them without 
leaving someone behind). My best wishes to you all Gang- you're forming 
an exceptionally tight and prosperous team. Your tools are the best 
I saw for being productive and easyness of use. Let's the Red/Red-System 
combination, to be the future C language replacement as the new World's 
low/high level language mix of choice.  Not to be without mentioning 
the REBOL and its loyal followers too (many of the same Red contributors 
but many more like Robert, Cyphre, Henrik ... and many others which 
have found their way while we were waiting for R3 to become open 
source, like Gabriele, Geomol ... - without which we would never 
be here now.

Sorry it was intended for the Red group first but as you see I am 
thinking about every one of you all - keep up the good work everybody 
!

BrianH: just for the reference - here's the console related blog 
and comments - http://www.rebol.net/cgi-bin/r3blog.r?view=0282#comments

Thanks.

wow impressed with the forward motion.

First baby steps towards R3 64-bit builds:
https://github.com/rebol/r3/issues/45#issuecomment-11746288


TL;DR: We are slowly getting to a foundation for more serious 64-bit 
work.

64 bit slower than 32 bit?

Yes, but that's not really any useful "user level" metric.

(At the moment.)

It would be slower, it would have to push more memory.

The 64-bit builds are not in any way real 64-bit ports. It's just 
getting 32b R3 to build natively. The R3 data structures are tuned 
for 32b architectures. Nothing of that sort is yet done for the 64 
bit builds.

I remember 32 bit windows slower than 16 bit

Oh well, back to the CBM64 8 bit days

My guess for the current timing difference would be that it's mostly 
attributable to misalignment exceptions.

They would have to be larger anyways, just to fit the larger pointers. 
Not yet optimized, but larger.

Anyway, great progress ... looking forward to accessing large memory

I also have tested on a CPU where misalignment penalties are quite 
heavy. Trying this on different CPUs might lead to quite different 
results.

(I'll just delete the timinig remark for now, to avoid unnecessary 
confusion.)

Well, the explanation performance difference is even simpler. It 
comes just from disabling compiler optimisations.

Running on a misalignment-tolerant machine, the unoptimised 64b binary 
is actually slightly faster than the unoptimised 32b binary.

Still a useless "user level" metric, at the moment :)

now, as the situation has changes, some minor topic, but maybe better 
to open it sooner than later - some ppl adopted .r3 extension for 
R3. When working with console, I constantly forget to type .r3 and 
type .r instead. I know, that we want to distinguish R2 to R3 scripts, 
but as R2 is most probably not going to be opensourced, and although 
it will serve us well for quite some time, what about once again 
get back to .r extension even for R3?

...we want to distinguish R2 to R3 scripts...

 - it depends. I found out it was much easier to maintain %include.r 
 running in both R2 and R3 than to have two separate versions needing 
 the same care twice.

I use .r for scripts that are expected to run in R2 or R3, .r2 for 
R2-only scripts and .r3 for R3-only scripts. However, a lot of my 
scripts are .cmd and call themselves with the appropriate Rebol.

In general, it is rare for me to use .r for scripts other than rebol.r, 
and I use the same one with R2 and R3.

I use .cmd instead of .bat because the tricks you use to call Rebol 
safely require cmd.exe (in NT-based Windows) and won't work with 
command.com (in Win9x/Me). It's not necessary to use .cmd for this, 
but it's a good reminder.

.r = both
.r2 = R2 only
.r3 = R3 only

Didn't help take you to a web page on www.rebol.com once?

Ahh, it's help/doc

Regarding 'read https://github.com/rebol/r3/blob/master/src/core/n-io.c

are lines 297-308 not used?

How about a native to create temporary filenames? It's something 
I need quite often.

Yes, I would like that as well.


For a proper solutation that avoids race conditions, it should create 
temporary files, not file_names_, though. So that would probably 
require a temp:// scheme?

Or just use syscalls .The posix extension I am working on will provide 
these features, template based creation too. 
for windows you can use this api call.  


http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa364991(v=vs.85).aspx

example:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa363875(v=vs.85).aspx

Of course you'd use syscalls to implement it. The scheme remark was 
about how to expose them in Rebol :)

Looking forward to your POSIX extension. Besides tempfiles I'd also 
regularly need support for working with symlinks.

using a scheme is a good idea.  then we can add various options to 
how to build them including things like auto naming, manual naming, 
prefixed naming, numbered, and the way it reports if a tmp file already 
exists.

Definitely sounds like a job for an extension.

yes link, unlink and lstat are included too.

readlink(3P) would be nice as well.

ok, will include this and CPU_SET ;-)

heh, CPU_SET will make this highly linux-specific, though. scheduling 
this externally with taskset(1) doesn't fit your needs?

there are ~450 functions in total. many of them are redundant but 
I guess I will hit ~150. it's more diligent work because it's just 
a thin wrapper.

yes, but this extension will be the foundation of  a nix/serverbased 
rebol.

controlling hardware resources will be very important here. just 
a quick fork, setaffinties, done. (so far in theory) ;-)