<Skymmer> | Let's see... | 2009-09-01 16:04:54 |
| Damn, works ;) | 2009-09-01 16:05:11 |
| Hi Eugene! And everybody else... | 2009-09-01 16:05:48 |
*** pinc has left the channel | 2009-09-01 16:14:07 |
| damn | 2009-09-01 16:33:36 |
*** Skymmer has left the channel | 2009-09-01 16:33:40 |
<sami> | here is the checksum, so that osman can join the benchmark too without doing much coding :-) http://pastebin.com/d5620470 | 2009-09-01 16:39:48 |
<Simon|B> | what are you guys doing at the moment? | 2009-09-01 16:48:25 |
<Shelwien> | i'm trying to fix scan5 to comply with sami's conditions ;) | 2009-09-01 16:49:18 |
<Simon|B> | scan5? I'm out of any information :-D | 2009-09-01 16:50:16 |
<Shelwien> | apparently we're making a directory traversal benchmark ;) | 2009-09-01 16:50:41 |
<Simon|B> | ok that's an information I can work with^^ | 2009-09-01 16:52:22 |
<Shelwien> | simon: there was also http://shelwien.googlepages.com/sami_template_v2.rar | 2009-09-01 16:53:46 |
| and osman's scanner which he just posted | 2009-09-01 16:53:55 |
<Simon|B> | didn't notice yet | 2009-09-01 17:08:26 |
| toffer? | 2009-09-01 17:09:00 |
<Shelwien> | ok, filesort works, more or less | 2009-09-01 17:11:18 |
| where's the checksum again?.. | 2009-09-01 17:11:31 |
<sami> | http://pastebin.com/d5620470 | 2009-09-01 17:11:38 |
<Shelwien> | its took quite some time ;) | 2009-09-01 17:12:03 |
| i completely forgot how scan5 works | 2009-09-01 17:12:11 |
| and its structure is inconvenient for this kind of sort | 2009-09-01 17:12:26 |
| ...that is, if i understood you right and file paths have to be sorted | 2009-09-01 17:12:57 |
<sami> | yes. "dir1/b.txt" < "dir2/a.txt" | 2009-09-01 17:13:21 |
<Shelwien> | i skipped subdirs, is that right too? | 2009-09-01 17:14:10 |
| i mean, only files with paths, no dirs alone | 2009-09-01 17:14:28 |
<sami> | yes, only files | 2009-09-01 17:14:46 |
<Shelwien> | ok, then i'd add crc and it'd be ready | 2009-09-01 17:14:58 |
| sami: do you want to compile it yourself? | 2009-09-01 17:22:00 |
| sami | 2009-09-01 17:28:36 |
| http://shelwien.googlepages.com/src_scan6.rar | 2009-09-01 17:28:38 |
| scan.exe is what's intended for benchmark | 2009-09-01 17:28:50 |
<sami> | ok, no source required | 2009-09-01 17:29:07 |
<Shelwien> | whatever | 2009-09-01 17:29:18 |
| there're both sources and executables | 2009-09-01 17:29:27 |
| scan-dump.exe is the same but produces also dump*.txt files | 2009-09-01 17:29:38 |
| which can be used to check if crc won't match | 2009-09-01 17:29:59 |
*** pinc has joined the channel | 2009-09-01 18:07:26 |
<sami> | scan.exe crashes after it prints out the memused=... line. it works in smaller directories but with the 250k files this happens | 2009-09-01 18:10:46 |
| the number of files it prints is correct | 2009-09-01 18:12:37 |
<Shelwien> | i suspected something like that ;) | 2009-09-01 18:20:06 |
| ok, i'd try to fix it ;) | 2009-09-01 18:20:14 |
*** toffer has left the channel | 2009-09-01 18:25:24 |
| reuploaded (the same link) | 2009-09-01 18:25:42 |
| sami? | 2009-09-01 18:28:17 |
<sami> | ok, I'll try again soon | 2009-09-01 18:48:29 |
*** chornobyl has left the channel | 2009-09-01 18:55:28 |
| our checksums don't match, but here are first unofficial results: myscan: 3.1s (kernel: 2.0, user: 1.0), scan6: 3.6 (kernel 1.9, user: 1.6) | 2009-09-01 19:48:36 |
| archiver template that has checksum added (with full sort) is: 21s (10s, 10s) | 2009-09-01 19:52:25 |
*** pinc|mirror has joined the channel | 2009-09-01 20:05:19 |
*** pinc has left the channel | 2009-09-01 20:10:30 |
*** pinc|mirror has left the channel | 2009-09-01 20:18:03 |
*** toffer has joined the channel | 2009-09-01 20:37:28 |
<toffer> | hi again | 2009-09-01 20:37:33 |
<Simon|B> | hi. You got the links toffer? | 2009-09-01 20:39:30 |
<toffer> | nope | 2009-09-01 20:41:21 |
| i had to quit | 2009-09-01 20:41:27 |
| could you post these again? | 2009-09-01 20:41:35 |
<Simon|B> | dunno^^ | 2009-09-01 20:45:16 |
| http://www.file-upload.net/download-1861346/log.txt.html | 2009-09-01 20:45:43 |
| old | 2009-09-01 20:45:45 |
| no new^^ | 2009-09-01 20:45:51 |
| http://www.file-upload.net/download-1861469/logo.txt.html | 2009-09-01 20:46:05 |
| old | 2009-09-01 20:46:07 |
| for new scroll down to line 1461 | 2009-09-01 20:48:59 |
<toffer> | this one doesn't have that much lines | 2009-09-01 20:51:57 |
<Simon|B> | no but new is the first ;) | 2009-09-01 20:52:50 |
| there is some old content first but not so the second | 2009-09-01 20:53:05 |
<toffer> | that looks pretty good | 2009-09-01 20:55:14 |
| i decided to add some kind of date/version number stuff and some information about the difference between minima | 2009-09-01 20:59:01 |
<sami> | Shelwien, about the improvment to rcs. the sh1d9e? is it about compiler tweaks only or is there something new? what's "__declspec(allocate(SEGNAME))"? | 2009-09-01 21:03:26 |
<Simon|B> | @ toffer adding where? | 2009-09-01 21:06:43 |
<toffer> | to the log output | 2009-09-01 21:08:08 |
<Simon|B> | oh right, it isn't there | 2009-09-01 21:10:53 |
| it's in the console so I thought there also | 2009-09-01 21:11:17 |
| where is the graph? :-P | 2009-09-01 21:14:22 |
<toffer> | it'll take some time | 2009-09-01 21:20:55 |
| since i'm under windows now | 2009-09-01 21:21:01 |
*** Simon|B has left the channel | 2009-09-01 21:36:05 |
*** sami has left the channel | 2009-09-01 21:54:45 |
| gn8 guys | 2009-09-02 00:11:47 |
*** toffer has left the channel | 2009-09-02 00:12:12 |
<Shelwien> | ...and what's "myscan"? | 2009-09-02 02:54:08 |
*** pinc has joined the channel | 2009-09-02 06:49:59 |
*** pinc|mirror has joined the channel | 2009-09-02 06:58:23 |
*** pinc has left the channel | 2009-09-02 06:59:01 |
*** pinc has joined the channel | 2009-09-02 07:23:56 |
*** pinc|mirror has left the channel | 2009-09-02 07:29:28 |
*** pinc has left the channel | 2009-09-02 07:34:05 |
*** pinc has joined the channel | 2009-09-02 08:01:29 |
*** toffer has joined the channel | 2009-09-02 08:55:15 |
<toffer> | hi | 2009-09-02 08:55:18 |
<Shelwien> | hi | 2009-09-02 08:55:59 |
*** Simon|B has joined the channel | 2009-09-02 09:16:22 |
*** Simon|B has left the channel | 2009-09-02 09:20:47 |
*** Simon|B has joined the channel | 2009-09-02 10:37:44 |
<osman> | hi | 2009-09-02 11:05:02 |
| is there any way to get unicode arguments from linux command line? | 2009-09-02 11:05:18 |
| i mean what's the equalivent way of "argv" for unicode chars | 2009-09-02 11:05:51 |
<Shelwien> | ;) | 2009-09-02 11:21:36 |
| i think they work with utf8 ;) | 2009-09-02 11:21:53 |
| http://eyegene.ophthy.med.umich.edu/unicode/ | 2009-09-02 11:23:30 |
| btw, osman | 2009-09-02 11:43:16 |
| "myscan" is your version or what? ;) | 2009-09-02 11:43:23 |
| i mean | 2009-09-02 11:43:48 |
| <sami> our checksums don't match, but here are first unofficial results: myscan: 3.1s (kernel: 2.0, user: 1.0), scan6: 3.6 (kernel 1.9, user: 1.6) | 2009-09-02 11:43:48 |
| <sami> archiver template that has checksum added (with full sort) is: 21s (10s, 10s) | 2009-09-02 11:43:48 |
<Simon|B> | What shall be the use of this archiver template? Will this be used by NZ and Bit? | 2009-09-02 12:01:24 |
<Shelwien> | sami's archiver template is used by flashzip | 2009-09-02 12:02:58 |
| and me and osman written our own implementations | 2009-09-02 12:03:27 |
| which parse the directory tree much faster | 2009-09-02 12:03:44 |
| and then | 2009-09-02 12:04:10 |
| it seems like a good simple task | 2009-09-02 12:04:18 |
| to compare various languages and programming styles | 2009-09-02 12:04:41 |
| (like Sami's version is mainly slow because of STL) | 2009-09-02 12:04:41 |
| so we're trying to make a benchmark | 2009-09-02 12:04:52 |
| ... | 2009-09-02 12:05:14 |
| and then, this code is also necessary for any program which works with multiple files | 2009-09-02 12:05:42 |
| like the backup tool which i'm supposed to write now ;) | 2009-09-02 12:06:12 |
<Simon|B> | yeah such tasks are something I wanted to know ;) | 2009-09-02 12:15:17 |
| sami uses his template? | 2009-09-02 12:15:26 |
<Shelwien> | no ;) | 2009-09-02 12:15:36 |
| he written it after nz | 2009-09-02 12:15:43 |
| and nz's version is twice faster ;) | 2009-09-02 12:15:55 |
<Simon|B> | funny :-D | 2009-09-02 12:16:09 |
<osman> | @Shelwien: i'm very busy to learn those craps about "platform compatibility" :) i really don't know about "myscan". i've packed my version as "bit" | 2009-09-02 12:26:45 |
<Shelwien> | weird | 2009-09-02 12:27:15 |
| maybe some new version of sami's?..\ | 2009-09-02 12:27:23 |
<osman> | maybe a kind of ripped version of nz | 2009-09-02 12:27:35 |
| actually it's unfair. because both of us supporting unicode | 2009-09-02 12:28:02 |
<Shelwien> | that's unlikely imho | 2009-09-02 12:28:02 |
| afaik nz version was twice faster than archiver template | 2009-09-02 12:28:27 |
| which is still much slower than scan5 ;) | 2009-09-02 12:28:35 |
| maybe he'd written a new one after seeing scan5 or something ;) | 2009-09-02 12:28:56 |
*** Shelwien has left the channel | 2009-09-02 12:29:17 |
*** Guest9968193 has joined the channel | 2009-09-02 12:29:21 |
<osman> | how are you "ghost" ? :) | 2009-09-02 12:29:43 |
<Shelwien> | read /ns help ghost | 2009-09-02 12:29:56 |
| you have to be registered though | 2009-09-02 12:30:05 |
<osman> | can't use any command in web client | 2009-09-02 12:30:11 |
<Shelwien> | you can | 2009-09-02 12:30:20 |
| send a PM to nickserv | 2009-09-02 12:30:36 |
| that /ns is a shortcut to /msg nickserv | 2009-09-02 12:30:54 |
<osman> | thanks for the explanation | 2009-09-02 12:31:16 |
| btw, on linux you are right | 2009-09-02 12:31:27 |
| all command lines argument passed as utf-8 | 2009-09-02 12:31:37 |
<Shelwien> | yeah | 2009-09-02 12:31:40 |
| simplifies things though | 2009-09-02 12:31:50 |
| damned MS ;) | 2009-09-02 12:31:58 |
<osman> | and also i found that "implementing posix api supported code" is much easier to "find a compatible version of standard I/O (fopen etc) for posix" | 2009-09-02 12:33:08 |
| btw, afair you have a mac in there right? | 2009-09-02 12:33:58 |
| macbook or mac-mini (which is my favorite :] )? | 2009-09-02 12:34:22 |
<Shelwien> | macbook | 2009-09-02 12:34:45 |
| ...with winXP on it... | 2009-09-02 12:35:00 |
<osman> | i wonder what's the operation system? darwin? carbon? | 2009-09-02 12:35:01 |
| grrr...then why do you use it!? :) | 2009-09-02 12:35:25 |
<Shelwien> | its small and light | 2009-09-02 12:35:48 |
| and relatively good display matrix | 2009-09-02 12:35:57 |
| and good accumulators | 2009-09-02 12:36:03 |
| and core2 | 2009-09-02 12:36:04 |
| ...but i hate its touchpad and keyboard, really | 2009-09-02 12:36:19 |
<osman> | at a time, i have tried to install macosx tiger to wmvare but no succeeded :) | 2009-09-02 12:36:41 |
<Shelwien> | but with an external mouse and keyboard... and display... its a nice working computer ;) | 2009-09-02 12:36:47 |
<osman> | i've used several mac os for a while (~3-6 months) | 2009-09-02 12:37:12 |
| then you should try mac-mini :) | 2009-09-02 12:37:27 |
<Shelwien> | http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4707572/MacOS_10.5.5_VMWARE_image | 2009-09-02 12:37:28 |
<osman> | do you have "partnership" with piratebay? :) | 2009-09-02 12:37:54 |
<Shelwien> | i had to write a tutorial on it recently | 2009-09-02 12:37:54 |
<osman> | for what? | 2009-09-02 12:38:17 |
<Shelwien> | for other developers to test the codec | 2009-09-02 12:38:20 |
<osman> | installing macs? :) | 2009-09-02 12:38:21 |
| which codec? | 2009-09-02 12:38:29 |
<Shelwien> | the audio codec | 2009-09-02 12:38:43 |
<osman> | audio? | 2009-09-02 12:38:44 |
| ah..ok | 2009-09-02 12:38:48 |
<Shelwien> | which i'm developing | 2009-09-02 12:38:51 |
<osman> | what's the current development status of it? | 2009-09-02 12:38:59 |
<Shelwien> | we have to port it to mac | 2009-09-02 12:39:00 |
| dunno | 2009-09-02 12:39:09 |
| its usable for years | 2009-09-02 12:39:25 |
| but we keep working on it | 2009-09-02 12:39:30 |
| and occasionally start from scratch | 2009-09-02 12:39:39 |
<osman> | making a iTunes plugin will be very good | 2009-09-02 12:39:43 |
<Shelwien> | somehow they're making a separate macos app for it | 2009-09-02 12:40:14 |
| and i use console encoder and directshow filters | 2009-09-02 12:40:32 |
| (which i written) | 2009-09-02 12:40:36 |
<osman> | btw, what's internal detail of the codec? i mean lossless, lossy? | 2009-09-02 12:40:39 |
<Shelwien> | i also made a plugin for XBMC | 2009-09-02 12:40:45 |
| lossy | 2009-09-02 12:40:52 |
<osman> | also LPC, DCT, wavelet? | 2009-09-02 12:40:52 |
<Shelwien> | MDCT | 2009-09-02 12:41:00 |
| with relatively large window though | 2009-09-02 12:41:20 |
| 1024 | 2009-09-02 12:41:23 |
<osman> | mp3s and ogg are typical MDCT codecs. so, what's the main advantage of this codec? (don't think i'm in offensive way. just wondering) | 2009-09-02 12:41:59 |
<Shelwien> | whatever, like i care | 2009-09-02 12:42:14 |
| it has better quality at the same bitrate though | 2009-09-02 12:42:35 |
| we use it at ~70kbps now | 2009-09-02 12:42:50 |
| and its supposed to be on par with HE-AAC 96kbps | 2009-09-02 12:43:06 |
<osman> | that's really good then :) | 2009-09-02 12:43:12 |
<Shelwien> | you can do a listening test btw | 2009-09-02 12:43:32 |
| we had a large-scale one recently | 2009-09-02 12:43:56 |
<osman> | :) i would compare them by listening + plus seeing residues + PSNR value for whole audio :) | 2009-09-02 12:44:12 |
<Shelwien> | however it takes like 2 hours so its unlikely that you'd do that | 2009-09-02 12:44:35 |
| and spectral analysis / PSNR are irrelevant | 2009-09-02 12:45:03 |
| unless you'd provide similar results for other codecs | 2009-09-02 12:45:23 |
<osman> | i think, this kind of tests are really required for lossy compressor (both audio and image/video) | 2009-09-02 12:45:35 |
| i mean comparing residues and PSNR with original source+mp3 and original source+lamix (or whatever) | 2009-09-02 12:46:20 |
<Shelwien> | as I said, who cares about PSNR at low bitrates | 2009-09-02 12:46:47 |
| its subjective quality that matters | 2009-09-02 12:46:58 |
| anyway, i can give you a console encoder/decoder | 2009-09-02 12:47:55 |
| if you're so interested ;) | 2009-09-02 12:48:06 |
<osman> | just for seeing equelivant bitrates at the other codes (some people really like that kind of comparations) | 2009-09-02 12:48:16 |
| maybe later :) | 2009-09-02 12:48:28 |
<Shelwien> | well, i don't care either way | 2009-09-02 12:48:41 |
| i'm only doing entropy coding and system stuff there | 2009-09-02 12:48:56 |
| also container format etc | 2009-09-02 12:49:06 |
| and i'm not a least bit happy about their psychoacoustic model | 2009-09-02 12:49:19 |
<osman> | it's bad you mean? | 2009-09-02 12:49:46 |
<Shelwien> | not really | 2009-09-02 12:49:52 |
| at least i did that LT39 myself | 2009-09-02 12:50:02 |
| and barely heard any difference with originals | 2009-09-02 12:50:24 |
| and believe me, i really tried | 2009-09-02 12:50:36 |
| just that its mainly manually configured, not quite adaptive | 2009-09-02 12:51:53 |
| (i mean, for different bitrates etc) | 2009-09-02 12:52:00 |
| and programming quality is really bad | 2009-09-02 12:52:23 |
<Simon|B> | Isn't VirtualBox better then VmWare now? | 2009-09-02 13:54:03 |
| Anyone used it? | 2009-09-02 13:54:13 |
<Shelwien> | i used VPC | 2009-09-02 13:59:11 |
| liked it more somehow | 2009-09-02 13:59:19 |
| more user-friendly somehow | 2009-09-02 13:59:26 |
| now have to use vmware though | 2009-09-02 14:00:24 |
| ...killing off all its services is really annoying | 2009-09-02 14:00:48 |
<Simon|B> | With vmware it's often difficult to do easy tasks | 2009-09-02 14:01:30 |
| don't mention many problems it has | 2009-09-02 14:01:57 |
| the I will try virtualbox :) | 2009-09-02 14:02:07 |
| An OSX machine is inteesting, also that I have a native system here :-D | 2009-09-02 14:04:17 |
*** Simon|B2 has joined the channel | 2009-09-02 14:08:04 |
<Simon|B2> | No 10.6 VM yet :( | 2009-09-02 14:09:31 |
*** Simon|B has left the channel | 2009-09-02 14:10:26 |
*** toffer has left the channel | 2009-09-02 14:11:15 |
*** toffer has joined the channel | 2009-09-02 14:18:34 |
*** Shelwien has left the channel | 2009-09-02 14:28:53 |
*** Shelwien has joined the channel | 2009-09-02 14:30:58 |
| How big/how much space does the posted vmware have @ Shelwien? | 2009-09-02 14:40:23 |
<Shelwien> | 8Gb or something i think | 2009-09-02 14:50:13 |
| i barely installed xcode and intelc there | 2009-09-02 14:50:25 |
| but i think there should be a way to resize it | 2009-09-02 14:50:48 |
<Simon|B2> | I remeber that this isn't possible | 2009-09-02 14:51:08 |
<Shelwien> | well, adding another partition surely is | 2009-09-02 14:51:30 |
| and imho resize should be possible too | 2009-09-02 14:52:05 |
<Simon|B2> | http://www.leonmeijer.nl/archive/2007/05/07/25.aspx | 2009-09-02 14:52:09 |
| yes it is possible | 2009-09-02 14:52:15 |
<Shelwien> | at least i was able to cut off 60G from my partition to install windows ;) | 2009-09-02 14:52:22 |
<Simon|B2> | sure you can set it at the beginning but I remembered that you can't change it later - wrong as noticed now :-D | 2009-09-02 14:53:19 |
*** sami has joined the channel | 2009-09-02 15:40:56 |
<sami> | hi! | 2009-09-02 15:41:14 |
| http://compressionratings.com/s_scan.html | 2009-09-02 15:41:19 |
<Shelwien> | hi | 2009-09-02 15:41:24 |
<sami> | the checksums match now for both of our programs | 2009-09-02 15:42:24 |
| but the numbers I quoted yesterday must have been wrong, I suspect, my program didn't do any sorting then | 2009-09-02 15:42:55 |
<Shelwien> | ok | 2009-09-02 15:43:01 |
| i was going to replace the sorting though ;) | 2009-09-02 15:43:13 |
<sami> | the 0w version means wide char version | 2009-09-02 15:43:16 |
<Shelwien> | the one used there is qsort+strcmp | 2009-09-02 15:43:30 |
| on full paths too | 2009-09-02 15:43:39 |
| i kinda think that its a wrong constraint for this task actually | 2009-09-02 15:44:09 |
| as my implementation is perfectly ok for an archiver | 2009-09-02 15:44:19 |
| but its not easy to produce a sorted path list from it | 2009-09-02 15:44:33 |
<sami> | "sscan v0 I" is supposed to be put into nz but it appears I'm too lazy to do that. the sscan was made after you sent me the benchmarks of archiver template | 2009-09-02 15:46:33 |
<Shelwien> | ;) | 2009-09-02 15:46:59 |
| well, its relevant for me now | 2009-09-02 15:47:11 |
| as apparently i'm really writing a remote backup utility... aka archiver for conexware ;) | 2009-09-02 15:47:37 |
| so i'd probably have to rewrite that scan too | 2009-09-02 15:48:02 |
| i've got an idea to use utf8 for name storage etc | 2009-09-02 15:48:14 |
<sami> | do I recall osman said his bitscan is faster than archiver template? doesn't seem so here. the one listed here I meant to put online too but forgot and now I already shut down the benchmark machine | 2009-09-02 15:48:38 |
| do I recall -> do I recall correctly | 2009-09-02 15:48:53 |
<Shelwien> | it probably doesn't scale well for that many file | 2009-09-02 15:48:57 |
| *files | 2009-09-02 15:49:01 |
<sami> | ok | 2009-09-02 15:49:07 |
<Shelwien> | so, is there any sense to update scan6 with some STL sorting? | 2009-09-02 15:49:38 |
| and I'd appreciate if you could give me a good STL line for sorting char* array ;) | 2009-09-02 15:50:47 |
<sami> | well, if you can observe an improvment, but I doubt it | 2009-09-02 15:51:17 |
<Shelwien> | i think that my current implementation is very inefficient for files with paths | 2009-09-02 15:51:45 |
| like, strcmp might even call strlen from it | 2009-09-02 15:52:17 |
| and i know the lengths... | 2009-09-02 15:52:22 |
| btw, what are these ISLV? | 2009-09-02 15:53:46 |
<sami> | sscan uses string class, so comparison is done with memcmp() actually, or wmemcmp for 0w | 2009-09-02 15:53:48 |
<Shelwien> | well, it might be still better than strcmp | 2009-09-02 15:54:11 |
<sami> | "I" is my own linked list, "S" is std::set, "L" is std::list, "V" is std::vector | 2009-09-02 15:54:33 |
<osman> | @shelwien: seems you are right. seems utf8 coded storage is really needed (especially in my case). because most of platforms supports utf8 by default. only exception seems windows | 2009-09-02 15:54:39 |
<sami> | "I" uses my own sorting naturally | 2009-09-02 15:54:56 |
<Shelwien> | yeah, and there's utf32 | 2009-09-02 15:54:57 |
<sami> | btw. how to convert wchar_t to utf8 in windows? | 2009-09-02 15:55:32 |
<Shelwien> | manually? ;) | 2009-09-02 15:56:03 |
<osman> | yep. manually ;) | 2009-09-02 15:56:11 |
<Shelwien> | i think that's the best solution anyway ;) | 2009-09-02 15:56:18 |
<osman> | utf32 is actually very abstract layer. and we actually need 21-bits representation ;) | 2009-09-02 15:56:39 |
<sami> | :-( I would really need that because I plan utf8 for nz windows. currently it works fine in utf8 linux :-) since no changes are needed | 2009-09-02 15:56:50 |
<Shelwien> | still >16 | 2009-09-02 15:56:51 |
<osman> | also there is a "standard" implementation about unicode compression ;) | 2009-09-02 15:56:54 |
| "still >16" ? | 2009-09-02 15:57:17 |
| all of unicode codes are reversible. so, what's the problem? | 2009-09-02 15:57:53 |
<Shelwien> | utf8>utf16 | 2009-09-02 15:58:09 |
<osman> | and also, i may even use utf8 strings internally. because there are several special codes to define multi-byte characters | 2009-09-02 15:58:32 |
<Shelwien> | "Round-trip conversion is easy between UTF-8 and UTF-16. To translate to UTF-8 and vice versa in Win32 programming, set the MultiByteToWideChar and WideCharToMultiByte codepage parameter to CP_UTF8." | 2009-09-02 15:58:32 |
| so there is an official way to do that | 2009-09-02 15:58:52 |
| but you can imagine the overhead ;) | 2009-09-02 15:58:59 |
| http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/goglobal/bb978451.aspx | 2009-09-02 15:59:35 |
<osman> | in a real archiver, string overhead would not be so much. if we would talk about xml parser, interpreter etc. that can be worthy imo | 2009-09-02 15:59:57 |
<Shelwien> | just imagine something like sami's test case | 2009-09-02 16:00:25 |
| with 250k files | 2009-09-02 16:00:30 |
| for every one of which you'd have to call WideCharToMultiByte() | 2009-09-02 16:00:51 |
<osman> | %) you're right | 2009-09-02 16:00:52 |
<Shelwien> | maybe two times | 2009-09-02 16:00:55 |
| (as there're name shortcuts) | 2009-09-02 16:01:14 |
<osman> | but, what do you think for real usages. i mean only considering extensions on sorting | 2009-09-02 16:01:29 |
<Shelwien> | well, i had that idea to use my own bitcoding instead of utf8 ;) | 2009-09-02 16:02:04 |
<osman> | huffman like codes ;) | 2009-09-02 16:02:22 |
<Shelwien> | optimal ordered more likely | 2009-09-02 16:02:37 |
| as sorting is required | 2009-09-02 16:02:43 |
| though in this case actually | 2009-09-02 16:02:51 |
| there're separate strings to sort | 2009-09-02 16:02:57 |
| so name rangecodes can be used too ;) | 2009-09-02 16:03:06 |
*** pinc has left the channel | 2009-09-02 16:03:14 |
<osman> | btw, did you realized that wchar_t actually is a variable coding on windows? %) | 2009-09-02 16:03:37 |
<Shelwien> | no | 2009-09-02 16:03:48 |
<osman> | it can represent >0xFFFF limit | 2009-09-02 16:03:58 |
<Shelwien> | dunno | 2009-09-02 16:04:08 |
| apparently they used these headers | 2009-09-02 16:04:16 |
| in some weird environments | 2009-09-02 16:04:24 |
<osman> | so, that's why i began to think use of a "universal" representation | 2009-09-02 16:04:33 |
<Shelwien> | as there're macro checks for MacOS occasionally etc | 2009-09-02 16:04:39 |
| in like win*.h files %) | 2009-09-02 16:04:46 |
<osman> | i mean you can map any utf-32 character (of course exception with non-defined code points) to utf-16 or utf-8. and both utf-8 and utf-16 have a special ranges in bytes which is called as surrogates. surrogates can be interpreted as control words which can be used to decode multibyte sequence. | 2009-09-02 16:07:00 |
| so, in short, in windows a single wchar_t DOES NOT ALWAYS reflect a unicode codepoint | 2009-09-02 16:08:07 |
<Shelwien> | ah, that | 2009-09-02 16:08:54 |
| ok, i forgot ;) | 2009-09-02 16:09:08 |
<osman> | so, even a simple sort method is not valid for utf-16 coded strings | 2009-09-02 16:09:35 |
<Shelwien> | isn't it valid for utf8? | 2009-09-02 16:10:02 |
| why not for utf16 then? | 2009-09-02 16:10:07 |
<osman> | i'm not sure they are valid (for both utf-8 and utf-16) | 2009-09-02 16:10:28 |
| high bits are used as surrogates btw. so, maybe it can be valid. i should look them carefully | 2009-09-02 16:10:59 |
| seems i'll use utf-8 at the end :) | 2009-09-02 16:11:36 |
<Shelwien> | same here probably | 2009-09-02 16:11:57 |
| btw did you see the sami's scanner benchmark? | 2009-09-02 16:12:17 |
<osman> | even for internal usage too. because utf-32 in linux is too much for me. which requires 4x memory | 2009-09-02 16:12:24 |
| yep. i briefly looked it | 2009-09-02 16:12:32 |
<Shelwien> | of course | 2009-09-02 16:12:36 |
<osman> | btw, did i mention about utf-16 endian problem? :) | 2009-09-02 16:13:16 |
<Shelwien> | ;) | 2009-09-02 16:13:27 |
<osman> | so, for me there is 2 choice: utf-8 and utf-32 | 2009-09-02 16:13:34 |
| and i know which one is really better :) | 2009-09-02 16:13:42 |
<Shelwien> | fortunately endian problems are unlikely in windows ;) | 2009-09-02 16:13:50 |
<osman> | yep. but, i decided to write BIT for both unix and windows platforms in parallel. so, i could find a universal solutions for both of them. | 2009-09-02 16:14:34 |
| i've looked lazarus which supports almost all platforms | 2009-09-02 16:15:08 |
| it has full unicode support for all platform except GTK1 | 2009-09-02 16:15:26 |
| and it uses utf-8 internally :) | 2009-09-02 16:15:37 |
| seems even on windows | 2009-09-02 16:15:45 |
<Shelwien> | well, why not | 2009-09-02 16:16:02 |
| if windows has native support for it too | 2009-09-02 16:16:14 |
<sami> | so how can conexware afford to develop remove backup util from scratch with fully original archiver/compression? | 2009-09-02 16:17:03 |
| to me that just doesn't compute | 2009-09-02 16:17:45 |
<osman> | windows support UCS-2 in old days (which is limited 0x0000-0xFFFF in ranges), but with winNT4, winXP, win2000 and higher, windows supports variable utf-16 coding in it's apis | 2009-09-02 16:17:53 |
<Shelwien> | sami: i guess i'm cheap ;) | 2009-09-02 16:18:58 |
<osman> | lol | 2009-09-02 16:19:07 |
| btw, sami what is you real job? | 2009-09-02 16:21:42 |
<sami> | Shelwien, ok, but still. I'm sure you ask for at least the minimum wage? | 2009-09-02 16:23:33 |
<Shelwien> | $15/hour | 2009-09-02 16:23:42 |
<sami> | with my own compression freelance work I'm always faced with a dilemma: should I use my own code that alerady exist for the task. I mean, often they want to own the code, so using my own code would transfer the authorship | 2009-09-02 16:25:27 |
<Shelwien> | yeah | 2009-09-02 16:25:48 |
| fortunately conexware doesn't care about that | 2009-09-02 16:26:00 |
| and my main job does | 2009-09-02 16:26:06 |
| but they're so "smart" that they couldn't actually patent a single thing | 2009-09-02 16:26:28 |
| err... | 2009-09-02 16:26:34 |
| i mean, they do get patents | 2009-09-02 16:26:40 |
<sami> | what has been your solution? I mean suppose conexware requires something that yo uhave already made in your freetime, how do you go about making that, do you sell it or do you "pretend" to be working on it :-) or what do you do? | 2009-09-02 16:26:49 |
<Shelwien> | but stuff described in there is unrelated to my actual algorithms | 2009-09-02 16:26:56 |
| usually neither in fact | 2009-09-02 16:27:35 |
| i just use it and don't count the time | 2009-09-02 16:27:42 |
| though that depends | 2009-09-02 16:27:49 |
| for example, i made dllmerge kinda for my own fun | 2009-09-02 16:28:04 |
| but it collided with dejpg job and was useful for it | 2009-09-02 16:28:20 |
| so i "sold" it ;) | 2009-09-02 16:28:23 |
<sami> | when I have been asked prices for the work that I've already done, it's difficult to set price it for them since often there is plenty of original research that took 10-100 time that it would take if I would just code it from scratch (knowing what to do) | 2009-09-02 16:28:33 |
<Shelwien> | i just count the time | 2009-09-02 16:28:51 |
| i'm writing a log (you can see an example in some ccm_sh versions) | 2009-09-02 16:29:23 |
| and then bill for the time written in it | 2009-09-02 16:29:40 |
| and its been ok for me until now | 2009-09-02 16:30:03 |
| there's no sense in requesting a lot anyway | 2009-09-02 16:30:51 |
| if you're expensive, you don't keep the job | 2009-09-02 16:31:14 |
| they take what they really need and then say bye | 2009-09-02 16:31:41 |
| so i just bill for the time i really spend - and that much money that i can get with other job(s) | 2009-09-02 16:32:34 |
<sami> | have you been required to sign something that you cannot "sell" the dllmerge again? | 2009-09-02 16:32:45 |
| I mean that they own it totally? | 2009-09-02 16:32:54 |
<Shelwien> | not with conexware | 2009-09-02 16:32:55 |
<sami> | you've got lucky | 2009-09-02 16:33:34 |
<Shelwien> | they're are quite ok actually even with that new archiver being "free" | 2009-09-02 16:33:38 |
| (console version) | 2009-09-02 16:33:46 |
| in fact i think i can even press them to open the source | 2009-09-02 16:34:35 |
| well, that's reasonable in fact | 2009-09-02 16:34:51 |
| patents cost too much | 2009-09-02 16:35:01 |
| and there's not much sense in them anyway, if you're not a corporation | 2009-09-02 16:35:37 |
<sami> | I'm a bit paranoid. for example. one time I was required to build a dll compressor for custom data and not required to provide source code. and they said I could use whatever previously existing original stuff I've got in that project. but I didn't do that because I thought there might be some loophole that they can legally hijack the ownership later and force me to provide the source | 2009-09-02 16:36:40 |
<Shelwien> | btw, that's the mp3zip patent - http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2467466/summary.html | 2009-09-02 16:36:49 |
| really funny imho ;) | 2009-09-02 16:36:53 |
| well, i don't think i ever wrote a program which could be that precious to me | 2009-09-02 16:38:14 |
| i mean, it might be a lot of work | 2009-09-02 16:38:35 |
| but i always have better ideas than i already implemented | 2009-09-02 16:38:48 |
| and i have all the previous results as additional bonus | 2009-09-02 16:39:08 |
| (tools etc) | 2009-09-02 16:39:14 |
| so i'm ok with selling it in whole, source and all, as long as they pay for my time | 2009-09-02 16:39:57 |
| also, my main drawback is that i never "work hard" ;) | 2009-09-02 16:41:22 |
<sami> | how much time (how many hours) have you estimated that you need for conexware for the archiver | 2009-09-02 16:41:47 |
<Shelwien> | dunno, years probably, in total | 2009-09-02 16:42:07 |
| but fortunately there're stages | 2009-09-02 16:42:17 |
<sami> | so conexware has not required any deadlines? | 2009-09-02 16:42:24 |
| right | 2009-09-02 16:42:40 |
<Shelwien> | and they have customers interested in some algorithms (like remote backup) which are relatively simple to implement, and necessary for a compressor anyway | 2009-09-02 16:43:21 |
| they did of course... and i've broken it multiple times ;) | 2009-09-02 16:43:46 |
| and fortunately there're not many people | 2009-09-02 16:43:57 |
| (i think 3 beside me actually ;) | 2009-09-02 16:44:10 |
<sami> | even if they pay you 15$/h for 1-2 years that's an investment, I'm surprised that conexware has the cash. I mean how does power archiver sell? I mean it's shareware right? how can that make any profits | 2009-09-02 16:45:04 |
<Shelwien> | from corporations mainly | 2009-09-02 16:45:29 |
| they have to setup some stuff for such tasks on their computers | 2009-09-02 16:45:52 |
| and occasionally they get inspections | 2009-09-02 16:45:59 |
<sami> | how come they have sold it to corporations? I mean which corporations would have use for it? | 2009-09-02 16:46:00 |
<Shelwien> | so they buy their stuff ;) | 2009-09-02 16:46:05 |
| corporations that use computers with windows in them | 2009-09-02 16:46:25 |
| users of these computers need some software to unpack zips ;) | 2009-09-02 16:46:48 |
| as apparently they're too dumb to use explorer context menus or something ;) | 2009-09-02 16:47:10 |
| (though actually PA supports a lot of formats, and zip extensions are the main reason why its used) | 2009-09-02 16:47:42 |
| ... | 2009-09-02 16:47:56 |
| also, in fact PA is used in some of adobe products ;) | 2009-09-02 16:48:13 |
| well, a custom PA-based installer | 2009-09-02 16:48:23 |
| ...so i guess, customers are what's important, not the software quality ;) | 2009-09-02 16:49:14 |
<sami> | :-) | 2009-09-02 16:50:01 |
<Shelwien> | anyway, it took me ~200 hours overall to write a working dejpg library | 2009-09-02 16:50:51 |
| and they paid for it | 2009-09-02 16:50:58 |
<Simon|B2> | There is mp3 compression availible fopr zip?? | 2009-09-02 16:51:02 |
<Shelwien> | no, only stuffit | 2009-09-02 16:51:09 |
| but jpeg recompression is already supported by winzip... and PA ;) | 2009-09-02 16:51:33 |
<sami> | I can respect conexware for the business then. don't know how they get those deals. I mean how must that thing work practically? they email adobe and ask that would you like an installer or does adobe find them? | 2009-09-02 16:51:41 |
<Simon|B2> | yeah stuffit recompresses almost everything :-D | 2009-09-02 16:51:50 |
| jpeg yes I know | 2009-09-02 16:51:55 |
<Shelwien> | well, apparently people mostly want to work with zip archives and usable GUI | 2009-09-02 16:52:58 |
| so an archiver with zip support has to be installed on each PC | 2009-09-02 16:53:20 |
<Simon|B2> | They seems to have some (many) custoerms, but why don't they work on a own compression format? | 2009-09-02 16:53:22 |
<Shelwien> | and corporations have to pay for programs which they install, at least before an occasional inspection ;) | 2009-09-02 16:54:01 |
| simon: well, now they've got me, and you can say that they work on it ;) | 2009-09-02 16:54:30 |
| i guess, the main problem | 2009-09-02 16:54:45 |
| is that small improvements just break the compatibility | 2009-09-02 16:55:05 |
| and nobody wants them | 2009-09-02 16:55:14 |
| and for some major breakthrough | 2009-09-02 16:55:30 |
| you can't just hire a random freelancer | 2009-09-02 16:55:53 |
| anyway, PA is a delphi GUI + proprietary 3rd-party libraries (like ziptv) | 2009-09-02 16:57:37 |
| they didn't really invest that much in developement... until recently, at least ;) | 2009-09-02 16:58:02 |
<Simon|B2> | Yeah sure. I mean an own new format. Something like buying NZ :D | 2009-09-02 16:59:59 |
<Shelwien> | you see, its not that much demand for it | 2009-09-02 17:00:51 |
| *there's | 2009-09-02 17:01:14 |
| basically, most people only use zip | 2009-09-02 17:01:23 |
| even, most people _unpack_ zip | 2009-09-02 17:01:42 |
<Simon|B2> | yes this could be. | 2009-09-02 17:02:11 |
<Shelwien> | and then, there're sometimes some specific related tasks | 2009-09-02 17:02:24 |
| like this backup thing | 2009-09-02 17:02:30 |
| but you can't use an existing solution for them | 2009-09-02 17:02:53 |
| basically, people want a flashy GUI (not even necessary a good one) | 2009-09-02 17:04:23 |
| and some interface features | 2009-09-02 17:04:46 |
| like ftp client and cd burner in PA ;) | 2009-09-02 17:05:10 |
| or, to be more archiver-specific, volumes and error recovery | 2009-09-02 17:05:27 |
| and they don't really care about compression | 2009-09-02 17:05:53 |
| like, i know this guy, a very professional engineer | 2009-09-02 17:06:33 |
| and he said once that there's no sense in my compression improvements | 2009-09-02 17:07:12 |
<Simon|B2> | yeah I have to have a look if I ever will be close to a release of my own archiver :-D | 2009-09-02 17:07:20 |
<Shelwien> | if i can't compress the file twice better than "standard" stuff ;) | 2009-09-02 17:07:29 |
| and you know, without recompression support for a lot of formats | 2009-09-02 17:09:00 |
| its really hard to compete with winrar... or the new winzip which uses LZMA/PPMD/jpeg recompression | 2009-09-02 17:09:23 |
<Simon|B2> | Sure. That's true, but Winzip also reacted this seems like it was necessary | 2009-09-02 17:12:14 |
<Shelwien> | well, with pressure from rar/7z it is, probably | 2009-09-02 17:14:49 |
*** Skymmer has joined the channel | 2009-09-02 17:38:34 |
<sami> | Shelwien by the way if you suspect your strcmp is to blame, you can compare it to sscan ilsv (lowercase), sscan doesn't do any sorting then | 2009-09-02 17:43:27 |
<osman> | a question again :) how can i get rid of "cannot execute binary file" under linux? | 2009-09-02 18:00:12 |
<Shelwien> | ? | 2009-09-02 18:06:06 |
| is it +x? | 2009-09-02 18:06:12 |
<toffer> | chmod +x | 2009-09-02 18:11:24 |
<osman> | it does not work | 2009-09-02 18:11:39 |
<Shelwien> | then its in wrong format | 2009-09-02 18:12:00 |
<osman> | i'm trying to compile "hello world" like program under cygwin | 2009-09-02 18:12:05 |
| with these commands: | 2009-09-02 18:12:13 |
| g++-linux bit.cpp -o bit | 2009-09-02 18:12:23 |
| ./bit | 2009-09-02 18:12:25 |
| does not work last line | 2009-09-02 18:12:37 |
<Shelwien> | well, that's some weird kind of linux probably | 2009-09-02 18:12:40 |
| try adding -static maybe | 2009-09-02 18:12:55 |
<osman> | $ file bit | 2009-09-02 18:13:14 |
| bit: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.4 | 2009-09-02 18:13:14 |
| .3, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), not stripped | 2009-09-02 18:13:21 |
<Shelwien> | as i said... | 2009-09-02 18:13:28 |
| if its ELF doesn't mean that it would run on any linux | 2009-09-02 18:13:46 |
<osman> | seems compiler did not like "-static" argument ;) | 2009-09-02 18:14:22 |
| dozens of messages listed | 2009-09-02 18:14:37 |
<Shelwien> | well, read the man about how to force it to compile a static binary then | 2009-09-02 18:14:51 |
| without these shared libraries | 2009-09-02 18:14:56 |
| which your linux might not want to share | 2009-09-02 18:15:12 |
<toffer> | @osman: if it's cpp add -lstdc++ | 2009-09-02 18:15:52 |
*** Skymmer has left the channel | 2009-09-02 18:17:48 |
<Shelwien> | toffer: he's trying to cross-compiler a linux binary under windows | 2009-09-02 18:17:50 |
<osman> | $ g++-linux bit.cpp -o -lstdc++ bit | 2009-09-02 18:17:52 |
<Shelwien> | *compile | 2009-09-02 18:18:11 |
<osman> | collect2: ld terminated with signal 11 [Segmentation fault], core dumped | 2009-09-02 18:18:13 |
| obably corrupted stack) | 2009-09-02 18:18:13 |
| 5 [main] ld 7608 _cygtls::handle_exceptions: Error while dumping state (pr | 2009-09-02 18:18:16 |
| bit(.text+0x2bc): In function `Unix::Console::PutChar(char)': | 2009-09-02 18:18:18 |
| i got same errors with "-static" | 2009-09-02 18:18:38 |
<toffer> | didn't kne | 2009-09-02 18:18:42 |
| w | 2009-09-02 18:18:43 |
*** Skymmer has joined the channel | 2009-09-02 18:18:44 |
<Shelwien> | its probably a wrong build | 2009-09-02 18:19:49 |
<toffer> | so it's built under windows and supposed to run under linux... what about the build envorinment? | 2009-09-02 18:20:27 |
<Shelwien> | its a cygwin cross gcc build | 2009-09-02 18:20:51 |
| but its probably old and broken | 2009-09-02 18:20:58 |
<osman> | http://metamod-p.sourceforge.net/cross-compiling.on.windows.for.linux.html | 2009-09-02 18:21:22 |
| i've followed these article | 2009-09-02 18:21:39 |
| *this | 2009-09-02 18:21:45 |
<Shelwien> | did you compile gcc and binutils? | 2009-09-02 18:21:53 |
<osman> | ? no | 2009-09-02 18:22:00 |
<Shelwien> | then its broken ;) | 2009-09-02 18:22:12 |
<toffer> | ^^ | 2009-09-02 18:22:27 |
<osman> | i've downloaded provided package and installed it | 2009-09-02 18:22:37 |
<Shelwien> | linuxes are not binary compatible | 2009-09-02 18:23:03 |
<toffer> | it still doesn't need to be broken | 2009-09-02 18:23:11 |
| where did you try to run it? | 2009-09-02 18:23:21 |
<osman> | in cygwin bash | 2009-09-02 18:23:31 |
<toffer> | well libraries should be compiled with the same versions | 2009-09-02 18:23:33 |
<Shelwien> | huh? | 2009-09-02 18:23:52 |
| a linux binary on windows? | 2009-09-02 18:23:58 |
<toffer> | i mean the libraries you link against | 2009-09-02 18:24:08 |
<Shelwien> | no wonder either ;) | 2009-09-02 18:24:08 |
<osman> | cygwin comes with it's own bash | 2009-09-02 18:24:20 |
<toffer> | it's not about the shell i guess | 2009-09-02 18:24:33 |
| i had some trouble with stuff built with gcc 4.0 and gcc 4.1 | 2009-09-02 18:24:48 |
<osman> | i'll try to run this executable under ubuntu (in vmware) | 2009-09-02 18:25:58 |
| we'll see what happen :) | 2009-09-02 18:26:09 |
| @toffer: installing gcc to ubuntu is same as what i've done (you can see the article)? | 2009-09-02 18:26:48 |
<Skymmer> | Hi people! And sorry for frequent connect\disconnect. I'm just experimenting with NickServ :) | 2009-09-02 18:27:07 |
<osman> | something like that i mean "tar -jxvf cygwin-gcc-linux.tar.bz2" | 2009-09-02 18:27:28 |
| hi skymmer | 2009-09-02 18:27:33 |
<toffer> | i guess your build environment is rather archaic | 2009-09-02 18:27:33 |
| gcc 2.95 ?! | 2009-09-02 18:27:36 |
| that's stoneage | 2009-09-02 18:27:40 |
<osman> | no no. i have downloaded the other package 3.3.6. i know it's not new either | 2009-09-02 18:28:19 |
*** Skymmer has left the channel | 2009-09-02 18:28:41 |
| skymmer died again :) | 2009-09-02 18:28:58 |
<toffer> | as i said you can get trouble with these libraries | 2009-09-02 18:29:25 |
| to clarify: you need to have the library which is used on the target platform available for you cross compiler environment | 2009-09-02 18:31:08 |
| e.g. the libc, stdc++, etc... | 2009-09-02 18:31:27 |
*** Skymmer has joined the channel | 2009-09-02 18:31:37 |
| the crt stuff at least | 2009-09-02 18:31:43 |
<osman> | i've tried in ubuntu. at least it's more informative :) | 2009-09-02 18:32:07 |
| osman@olap-ubuntu:~/Desktop$ ./bitarc | 2009-09-02 18:32:13 |
| bash: ./bitarc: Permission denied | 2009-09-02 18:32:19 |
| osman@olap-ubuntu:~/Desktop$ chmod +x bitarc | 2009-09-02 18:32:26 |
| osman@olap-ubuntu:~/Desktop$ ./bitarc | 2009-09-02 18:32:32 |
| ./bitarc: error while loading shared libraries: libstdc++.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory | 2009-09-02 18:32:38 |
| so, you are right ;) | 2009-09-02 18:33:08 |
<toffer> | you need to find out which libraries are used there | 2009-09-02 18:33:47 |
<osman> | so, toffer all of those linux binaries are incompatible between each linux distro? or every programmer make static compile of their own programs? | 2009-09-02 18:34:07 |
<Shelwien> | yeah, frequently | 2009-09-02 18:34:51 |
<toffer> | some stuff which has to work everywhere is linked statically (e.g. it was thelike for some nvidia drivers) | 2009-09-02 18:34:52 |
| but normally there's more than a single version of a library installed | 2009-09-02 18:35:07 |
*** Skymmer has left the channel | 2009-09-02 18:35:42 |
*** Skymmer has joined the channel | 2009-09-02 18:35:59 |
<osman> | so, it's somehow equilavent to ms libraries in a way - usually you cannot any msvc compiled program under the other computers unless you don't statically compiled it or install vcdistr | 2009-09-02 18:36:14 |
| *you cannot run | 2009-09-02 18:36:36 |
<Shelwien> | its easier in MS case actually | 2009-09-02 18:36:50 |
| as there're no redistributables for linux usually | 2009-09-02 18:37:01 |
<toffer> | but keep in mind that there's only a single windows "distro" | 2009-09-02 18:37:38 |
| so it's not that hard to have different libs. installed on a system... i bet you find several mscv*.dll versions in you windows folder... | 2009-09-02 18:38:23 |
<Skymmer> | @toffer: optimizer still running. 155 iters so far | 2009-09-02 18:38:34 |
<toffer> | nice :) | 2009-09-02 18:41:24 |
<Skymmer> | I've made a test with best_360.txt and intermediate best_enwik.txt: 23 339 558 for best_360.txt and 23 311 822 for best_enwik.txt | 2009-09-02 18:41:27 |
<toffer> | i still need to put a release version together an clean the code a bit ... and i can make some graphs comparing 0.3b and 0.4 | 2009-09-02 18:42:48 |
| but still i was busy the whole day | 2009-09-02 18:43:01 |
<osman> | under ubuntu, i've done this: | 2009-09-02 18:45:35 |
| osman@olap-ubuntu:~/Desktop$ ldd bitarc | 2009-09-02 18:45:36 |
| linux-gate.so.1 => (0xffffe000) | 2009-09-02 18:45:43 |
| libstdc++.so.5 => not found | 2009-09-02 18:45:49 |
| libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libm.so.6 (0xb7f9b000) | 2009-09-02 18:45:55 |
| libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0xb7f8f000) | 2009-09-02 18:46:01 |
| libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 (0xb7e45000) | 2009-09-02 18:46:06 |
| /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb7fcc000) | 2009-09-02 18:46:11 |
| but cygwin does not support even ldd command %) | 2009-09-02 18:46:25 |
<toffer> | well it's just not installed i guess | 2009-09-02 18:46:49 |
<osman> | anyway. seems libstdc++ didn't exist | 2009-09-02 18:47:18 |
<toffer> | it's pretty old | 2009-09-02 18:47:24 |
| the libstdc++ you linked against | 2009-09-02 18:47:32 |
<osman> | seems i'll compile all of them under ubuntu | 2009-09-02 18:47:47 |
<toffer> | well | 2009-09-02 18:47:54 |
| you just need to use (build) more recent libraries you links against | 2009-09-02 18:48:14 |
| afaik ubuntu is a debian derivative | 2009-09-02 18:48:26 |
<osman> | yes. it's a debian derivation | 2009-09-02 18:48:43 |
<toffer> | you may want to try: apt-get install libstdc++5 | 2009-09-02 18:48:52 |
| to get the old c library | 2009-09-02 18:48:56 |
| to see that it works | 2009-09-02 18:49:00 |
| afterwards get a more recent build environment | 2009-09-02 18:49:10 |
<osman> | in ubuntu? | 2009-09-02 18:49:12 |
| or cygwin? | 2009-09-02 18:49:19 |
<Shelwien> | i don't think there's apt in cygwin | 2009-09-02 18:49:58 |
<toffer> | i mean in ubuntu | 2009-09-02 18:50:10 |
| he needs to get the library version he used to link against at your cross compile environment | 2009-09-02 18:50:32 |
| since the build environment is ancient | 2009-09-02 18:50:53 |
| it's no wonder actually | 2009-09-02 18:50:58 |
<osman> | osman@olap-ubuntu:~/Desktop$ sudo apt-get install libstdc++.so.5 | 2009-09-02 18:51:17 |
| [sudo] password for osman: | 2009-09-02 18:51:23 |
<toffer> | drop the extensions | 2009-09-02 18:51:26 |
<osman> | Reading package lists... Done | 2009-09-02 18:51:29 |
<toffer> | libstdc++5 | 2009-09-02 18:51:34 |
<osman> | Building dependency tree | 2009-09-02 18:51:37 |
| ah..ok | 2009-09-02 18:51:45 |
| wait | 2009-09-02 18:51:46 |
| Building dependency tree | 2009-09-02 18:52:10 |
| Reading state information... Done | 2009-09-02 18:52:17 |
| E: Couldn't find package libstdc | 2009-09-02 18:52:25 |
| same as w/o extension | 2009-09-02 18:52:39 |
<toffer> | ... | 2009-09-02 18:52:44 |
| i've already typed in what you need to do | 2009-09-02 18:52:54 |
| <toffer> you may want to try: apt-get install libstdc++5 | 2009-09-02 18:52:59 |
| if the packages are named differently in ubuntu | 2009-09-02 18:53:38 |
| you can find the name vie apt-cache search libstdc | 2009-09-02 18:53:48 |
| via | 2009-09-02 18:53:56 |
| got it? | 2009-09-02 18:54:39 |
<osman> | libstdc++6-4.1-dev - The GNU Standard C++ Library v3 (development files) | 2009-09-02 18:54:54 |
| libstdc++6 - The GNU Standard C++ Library v3 | 2009-09-02 18:55:02 |
<toffer> | cat /etc/apt/sources.list | 2009-09-02 18:56:10 |
| so they don't have an old libstdc++ in their package manager? | 2009-09-02 18:56:47 |
<osman> | very long list have been listed in terminal | 2009-09-02 18:57:23 |
<toffer> | so is libstdc++5 in there? | 2009-09-02 18:57:43 |
| if yes just install it | 2009-09-02 18:57:47 |
| but actually you shouldn't modify the target environment to match the build environment. it's like you want to compile a dos app and swap from win to dos just for the build. | 2009-09-02 18:58:49 |
<osman> | # See http://help.ubuntu.com/community/UpgradeNotes for how to upgrade to # newer versions of the distribution. # Line commented out by installer because it failed to verify: #deb http://tr.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ gutsy main restricted | 2009-09-02 18:59:13 |
| all of the lines commented out | 2009-09-02 18:59:23 |
| toffer. seems it's better to use native environment to compile something :) | 2009-09-02 18:59:50 |
<toffer> | did apt-cache search libstdc++ print out libstdc++5 | 2009-09-02 18:59:53 |
| you an run into the same troubles | 2009-09-02 19:00:04 |
| can | 2009-09-02 19:00:06 |
<osman> | no. as i posted before. there is only libstdc++6 | 2009-09-02 19:01:00 |
*** Simon|B2 has left the channel | 2009-09-02 21:19:42 |
*** sami has left the channel | 2009-09-02 21:59:14 |
*** toffer has left the channel | 2009-09-03 00:15:29 |
<Shelwien> | !next | 2009-09-03 03:47:34 |