hamei wrote:
Anyway, the more software the better, right?
It sure can't hurt to have software choices. Thanks for all your porting efforts, hamei!
_________________
Sun SPARCstation 20, Blade 2500
HP C8000
SGI: Development
undefined identifier : SIAG - Page 2
It sure can't hurt to have software choices. Thanks for all your porting efforts, hamei!
_________________
Sun SPARCstation 20, Blade 2500
HP C8000
hamei wrote:
Wull, ah'll be a monkey's uncle ... we run outta code for him to do weird stuff with. Ta-daaa
Looks like I've got enough stuff to keep me busy for a month tardistting ... A big thank-you to everyone who gave directions and didn't laugh at the stupid questions. Not publicly, anyhow
Looks like I've got enough stuff to keep me busy for a month tardistting ... A big thank-you to everyone who gave directions and didn't laugh at the stupid questions. Not publicly, anyhow
Heh, no worries. I must confess I quite enjoy this kind of armchair porting.
_________________
halo
,
oct
ane
N.B.: I tend to talk out of my ass. Do not take it too seriously.
_________________
no plan
hamei wrote:
I'm not entirely happy with this :
Code:
static XtActionsRec actions [] =
{
#ifdef HAVE_LIBGUILE
{"guile", execute_guile_action},
#endif
#ifdef HAVE_LIBTCL
{"tcl", execute_tcl_action}
#endif
#if 0
{"execute", execute_siod_action},
#endif
{"unspeakable_profanity", NULL}
};
{
#ifdef HAVE_LIBGUILE
{"guile", execute_guile_action},
#endif
#ifdef HAVE_LIBTCL
{"tcl", execute_tcl_action}
#endif
#if 0
{"execute", execute_siod_action},
#endif
{"unspeakable_profanity", NULL}
};
Well, what about something ugly like
Code:
static XtActionsRec actions [0
#ifdef HAVE_LIBGUILE
+ 1
#endif
#if 0
+ 1
#endif
#ifdef HAVE_LIBTCL
+ 1
#endif
] =
{
#ifdef HAVE_LIBGUILE
{"guile", execute_guile_action},
#endif
#if 0
{"execute", execute_siod_action},
#endif
#ifdef HAVE_LIBTCL
{"tcl", execute_tcl_action}
#endif
};
#ifdef HAVE_LIBGUILE
+ 1
#endif
#if 0
+ 1
#endif
#ifdef HAVE_LIBTCL
+ 1
#endif
] =
{
#ifdef HAVE_LIBGUILE
{"guile", execute_guile_action},
#endif
#if 0
{"execute", execute_siod_action},
#endif
#ifdef HAVE_LIBTCL
{"tcl", execute_tcl_action}
#endif
};
It might work if MIPSPro supports zero-sized arrays. I don't remember if it does.
_________________
R4000
R4400
R4400
R8000
R10000
R4000PC
R4000SC
R5000SC
R5000
RM7000
2xR10000
R12000
-
2x2xR10000
R16000
among more than 150 machines : Apollo, Be, Data General, Digital, HP, IBM, MIPS before SGI , Motorola, NeXT, SGI, Solbourne, Sun...
yetanother**ixuser wrote:
so dont get lazy, onward to porting the whole suit *gg*
http://siag.nu/
http://siag.nu/
Okay le, done, done, and kinda done ... a 'sperimental tardist is winging its way east even as we speak. It all works (I think. It's sort of hard to tell with that quirky software.)
It's not good enough to be nekoware, imo. So I made it a separate thing that installs under /opt/will_robinson/
It's all there (I hope) - source, patches, description of the process, the whole enchilada. I should have included a link to this thread, I guess ...
Much of the "suite" is not very useful now. I can't imagine anyone but a flagellante using that file manager, for instance. And Pathetic Writer is correctly named. But the spreadsheet is interesting - it uses scheme and guile and C and whatever else your heart may desire. So if someone else wants to get in there and get their hands dirty, at least this is a start. Maybe strip out the extra junk and just create a spreadsheet program out of it ? It's not so suitable for what I wanted so I am done with it ... but might be good for someone else.
miod : thanks for the better patch, I will try that and report back before I end this chapter of blundering around
_________________
waiting for flight 1203 ...
miod wrote:
It might work if MIPSPro supports zero-sized arrays. I don't remember if it does.
Apparently not
Code:
cc-1094 cc: ERROR File = xsiag.c, Line = 132
The constant array dimension size is not a positive integral type.
static XtActionsRec actions [0
^
cc-1029 cc: ERROR File = xsiag.c, Line = 155
An expression is expected at this point.
};
^
The constant array dimension size is not a positive integral type.
static XtActionsRec actions [0
^
cc-1029 cc: ERROR File = xsiag.c, Line = 155
An expression is expected at this point.
};
^
Thank you for the idea tho. Maybe the next person in line can use it ...
As for me, bye-bye SIAG
If someone pulls out all the junk, maybe links up the editor command to a user's preferred editor, same with the word processor, etc. it could possibly be a useful spreadsheet. Someone else !!
_________________
waiting for flight 1203 ...
miod wrote:
Well, what about something ugly like
It might work if MIPSPro supports zero-sized arrays. I don't remember if it does.
Code:
static XtActionsRec actions [0
#ifdef HAVE_LIBGUILE
+ 1
#endif
#if 0
+ 1
#endif
#ifdef HAVE_LIBTCL
+ 1
#endif
] =
{
#ifdef HAVE_LIBGUILE
{"guile", execute_guile_action},
#endif
#if 0
{"execute", execute_siod_action},
#endif
#ifdef HAVE_LIBTCL
{"tcl", execute_tcl_action}
#endif
};
#ifdef HAVE_LIBGUILE
+ 1
#endif
#if 0
+ 1
#endif
#ifdef HAVE_LIBTCL
+ 1
#endif
] =
{
#ifdef HAVE_LIBGUILE
{"guile", execute_guile_action},
#endif
#if 0
{"execute", execute_siod_action},
#endif
#ifdef HAVE_LIBTCL
{"tcl", execute_tcl_action}
#endif
};
It might work if MIPSPro supports zero-sized arrays. I don't remember if it does.
You'd need to add backslashes after the 0 and +1:s to make this trick work, and you introduce another problem with the exact same cause, if neither of the defines are set, the array is initialized with zero length which is not allowed. Nah, just making sure that ={}; does not happen is sufficient.
_________________
halo
,
oct
ane
N.B.: I tend to talk out of my ass. Do not take it too seriously.
duck wrote:
You'd need to add backslashes after the 0 and +1:s to make this trick work
No.
duck wrote:
and you introduce another problem with the exact same cause, if neither of the defines are set, the array is initialized with zero length which is not allowed
I said I did not remember whether MIPSPro did support zero-length arrays...
_________________
R4000
R4400
R4400
R8000
R10000
R4000PC
R4000SC
R5000SC
R5000
RM7000
2xR10000
R12000
-
2x2xR10000
R16000
among more than 150 machines : Apollo, Be, Data General, Digital, HP, IBM, MIPS before SGI , Motorola, NeXT, SGI, Solbourne, Sun...
miod wrote:
duck wrote:
You'd need to add backslashes after the 0 and +1:s to make this trick work
No.
Yes. I tested it
It seems GCC doesn't require them though.
_________________
halo
,
oct
ane
N.B.: I tend to talk out of my ass. Do not take it too seriously.
duck wrote:
It seems GCC doesn't require them though.
Sooprize sooprize
_________________
waiting for flight 1203 ...
duck wrote:
miod wrote:
duck wrote:
You'd need to add backslashes after the 0 and +1:s to make this trick work
No.
Yes. I tested it
How?
Miod is right. No standards-compliant C compiler should require backslashes in this situation.
Why? The compiler doesn't care about whitespace at all. So, the following two programs are identical, as far as the compiler is concerned:
Code:
int foo[0+1+1+2+3+5];
int main() { return foo[0]; }
int main() { return foo[0]; }
and
Code:
int foo[0
+1
+1
+2
+3+5];
int main() { return foo[0]; }
+1
+1
+2
+3+5];
int main() { return foo[0]; }
Compile them both with c99; if it fails to compile the second example, then the compiler doesn't follow the standard.
ShadeOfBlue wrote:
Compile them both with c99; if it fails to compile the second example, then the compiler doesn't follow the standard.
Wow, must have been a PEBKAC, because now I can't reproduce it... D'oh!
_________________
halo
,
oct
ane
N.B.: I tend to talk out of my ass. Do not take it too seriously.
Okay le, onwards and upwards ... If anyone would like to go forward on making SIAG into proper nekoware, Mr Nekonoko kindly put the tardist into /pub/downloads/contrib/hamei. I think it could make a useful piece of software if someone streamlined and nekoized it a bit. I am not the best person for that but at least if anyone needs or wants SIAG, it works. In Irix, yet
_________________
waiting for flight 1203 ...