Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 74 75 76 77 [78] 79 80 81 82 ... Last
[#] Sat May 21 2011 17:04:44 EDT from ambushbug @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

http://bellard.org/jslinux/

boot a linux machine in pc emulated via javasvript.

[#] Sat May 21 2011 17:24:17 EDT from ambushbug @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

nebermind, saw it dicussed in another room.

[#] Mon May 23 2011 10:04:55 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I just realized though, you can't write a network stack, you can't do network calls from javascript, can you? All you get is xmlhttp request, and that's it right?

[#] Mon May 23 2011 13:42:22 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

Subject: Re:

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

depends. probably node.js allows you to.



[#] Mon May 23 2011 14:19:03 EDT from Spell Binder @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Even if that was all you were limited to, you could set up the site hosting the JS page to act as a proxy. Send a special XMLHttpRequest that would cause the hosting site to open up a socket for you.

[#] Mon May 23 2011 15:09:42 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

yeah, but that's a lousy way to do it, and it opens you up to spammers and all whatelse.

[#] Mon May 23 2011 15:11:23 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

node.js sounds cool, but it's intended to be serverside.
Once you allow that shit in a browser, that will really be the end.

[#] Mon May 23 2011 15:12:45 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Even if that was all you were limited to, you could set up the site
hosting the JS page to act as a proxy. Send a special XMLHttpRequest

that would cause the hosting site to open up a socket for you.

Yeah, that. :)

[#] Mon May 23 2011 15:12:28 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I can't imagine anyone's going to use it for anything other than research and demonstration, so it really doesn't matter. I suppose if you really wanted a network stack, you would need a server-side component that allowed the javascript thing to make xmlhttprequest requests that correspond to the sending and receiving of ethernet packets on the server side.

[#] Mon May 23 2011 17:13:13 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

well, maybe just a browser plugin therefore?

since they're intending to get those fat localy cached webapps maybe thats the way to go?



[#] Tue May 24 2011 15:16:45 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

you speak of chrome os.

[#] Tue May 31 2011 02:24:52 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

*gngn* where was the original discussion at?

fleeb, I get this:

gcc base_xx.cpp -o test1
In file included from /usr/include/c++/4.5/unordered_map:35:0,
from base_64.h:18,
from base_xx.cpp:5:
/usr/include/c++/4.5/bits/c++0x_warning.h:31:2: error: #error This file requires compiler and library support for the upcoming ISO C++ standard, C++0x. This support is currently experimental, and must be enabled with the -std=c++0x or -std=gnu++0x compiler options.
In file included from base_xx.cpp:5:0:
base_64.h:285:12: error: 'unordered_map' in namespace 'std' does not name a type
base_64.h:476:4: error: 'char_lookup_t' does not name a type
base_64.h: In member function 'int tvr::decode::base_64::decode_value(char)':
base_64.h:451:10: error: '_alphabet_map' was not declared in this scope
base_64.h:455:5: error: 'char_lookup_t' has not been declared
base_64.h:455:35: error: expected ';' before 'found'
base_64.h:456:10: error: 'found' was not declared in this scope
base_64.h:456:19: error: '_alphabet_map' was not declared in this scope
base_64.h: In member function 'void tvr::decode::base_64::build_map()':
base_64.h:470:6: error: '_alphabet_map' was not declared in this scope

 

and the other one... no main?

gcc cdecode.c -o test
/usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crt1.o(.debug_info): relocation 0 has invalid symbol index 11
/usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crt1.o(.debug_info): relocation 1 has invalid symbol index 12
/usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crt1.o(.debug_info): relocation 2 has invalid symbol index 2
/usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crt1.o(.debug_info): relocation 3 has invalid symbol index 2
/usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crt1.o(.debug_info): relocation 4 has invalid symbol index 11
/usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crt1.o(.debug_info): relocation 5 has invalid symbol index 13
/usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crt1.o(.debug_info): relocation 6 has invalid symbol index 13
/usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crt1.o(.debug_info): relocation 7 has invalid symbol index 13
/usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crt1.o(.debug_info): relocation 8 has invalid symbol index 2
/usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crt1.o(.debug_info): relocation 9 has invalid symbol index 2
/usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crt1.o(.debug_info): relocation 10 has invalid symbol index 12
/usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crt1.o(.debug_info): relocation 11 has invalid symbol index 13
/usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crt1.o(.debug_info): relocation 12 has invalid symbol index 13
/usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crt1.o(.debug_info): relocation 13 has invalid symbol index 13
/usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crt1.o(.debug_info): relocation 14 has invalid symbol index 13
/usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crt1.o(.debug_info): relocation 15 has invalid symbol index 13
/usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crt1.o(.debug_info): relocation 16 has invalid symbol index 13
/usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crt1.o(.debug_info): relocation 17 has invalid symbol index 13
/usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crt1.o(.debug_info): relocation 18 has invalid symbol index 13
/usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crt1.o(.debug_info): relocation 19 has invalid symbol index 13
/usr/bin/ld.bfd.real: /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/crt1.o(.debug_info): relocation 20 has invalid symbol index 20
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.5.3/../../../../lib/crt1.o: In function `_start':
(.text+0x20): undefined reference to `main'



[#] Tue May 31 2011 15:13:31 EDT from Spell Binder @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I don't think fleeb follows this room anymore.

He posted something over in Techie Talk just last week, though.

[#] Mon Jun 13 2011 14:57:44 EDT from skpacman @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]



[#] Wed Jun 15 2011 09:26:44 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

so... another compiler in da house?

http://www.pathscale.com/ekopath4-open-source-announcement

lets see when the source follows the anouncement.



[#] Wed Jun 15 2011 10:22:35 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Abandonware?

Also I seriously doubt their claim that the open source community has been requesting "a modern debugger that is not encumbered by the GPLv3."

[#] Wed Jun 15 2011 10:58:24 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

Subject: Re:

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

well, thats probably what for example apple (and others) wants, so they can closely bind it into their IDE...

but... since even microsoft has been giving away their C-Compiler for free for several years now... so does intel with their ICC and sun (oracle) with their Sun-Studio...

I guess its just getting harder to ask a price from customers for the compiler itself...

and... the number of software you can compile with this compiler without having to correct all those little quirks we all know...

I think their marketing aproach changed from "people wanting high performance binaries will come to us" to "people knowing the good performance of our compiler will come to us once they have serious business and need services like special tuning"

if its high end computing, those tunings can probably save you reasonable expensive time on clusters and such.



[#] Thu Jun 16 2011 16:16:35 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I wouldn't know personally, but I thought gcc was the shit when it came to tight code.


[#] Fri Jun 17 2011 22:25:19 EDT from Nite*Star @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Any Apple OS/X fanboy programmers in da house?

[#] Sat Jun 18 2011 19:06:42 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

no actually we all think os/x development really sucks.

Go to page: First ... 74 75 76 77 [78] 79 80 81 82 ... Last