3 ms·

Fantastic work. I remember using Dillo in Puppy Linux from Live CDs back in the day. What's the minimum compiler you target? Any big long term plans? Fuzzing?

by janice1999 3y ago

Fantastic work. I remember using Dillo in Puppy Linux from Live CDs back in the day. What's the minimum compiler you target? Any big long term plans? Fuzzing? Moving to 'modern' build system like CMake?

rodarima 3y ago
Thanks! > What's the minimum compiler you target? I didn't defined any (yet), but shouldn't be too hard to add to the CI. > Any big long term plans? First preventing it from dying and getting removed from distros. Then it depends of how much free time I can dedicate to it, but at least maintaining it. > Fuzzing? I would say first adding some of the other browser tests suites. That should catch a lot of rendering issues. But yeah, fuzzing would be interesting, specially for the custom HTML and CSS parsers. > Moving to 'modern' build system like CMake? Yes, I had to modify the configure.ac and that was very painful, specially targeting a lot of platforms. It is also broken for cross compilation. I have to check also how is the support for cmake in other systems, so we can safely remove Automake and friends. But I didn't want to introduce any big changes before 3.1 is released.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  Speculation: I wonder if it's relatively easy to fuzz because the extension system already has things adapted to communicate over std in/out.
- dfox 3y ago
  I would suggest switching to Meson instead of CMake.
  - janice1999 3y ago
    How well does Meson handle complex cross-platform projects nowadays with multiple compilers? My team tried Meson about ~3yrs ago for an embedded system. We ended up moving to CMake instead after struggling to use it for armclang.
    - actionfromafar 3y ago
      It’s better, but I believe link options still is controlled a little too much by meson magic.
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    I would suggest neither of those, nor ninja nor anything but make. Whatever sucks about a simple/shallow stack, what sucks about tall fat stacks is worse.
- bambax 3y ago
  > targeting a lot of platforms Wouldn't a project such as this one be a perfect candidate for Cosmopolitan? > Cosmopolitan Libc makes C a build-anywhere run-anywhere language, like Java, except it doesn't need an interpreter or virtual machine. Instead, it reconfigures stock GCC and Clang to output a POSIX-approved polyglot format that runs natively on Linux + Mac + Windows + FreeBSD + OpenBSD + NetBSD + BIOS on AMD64 and ARM64 with the best possible performance. https://justine.lol/cosmopolitan/ https://justine.lol/cosmopolitan/
  - rodarima 3y ago
    AFAIK, Cosmopolitan only works well if your program only depends on the libc. Even if you statically compile Dillo and the FLTK, you still would need a graphic Xorg server. For Linux and BSDs may work, but in macOS I think it won't, as for that platform you need the FLTK to link against macOS graphic libraries.

rodarima 3y ago

Thanks! > What's the minimum compiler you target? I didn't defined any (yet), but shouldn't be too hard to add to the CI. > Any big long term plans? First preventing it from dying and getting removed from distros. Then it depends of how much free time I can dedicate to it, but at least maintaining it. > Fuzzing? I would say first adding some of the other browser tests suites. That should catch a lot of rendering issues. But yeah, fuzzing would be interesting, specially for the custom HTML and CSS parsers. > Moving to 'modern' build system like CMake? Yes, I had to modify the configure.ac and that was very painful, specially targeting a lot of platforms. It is also broken for cross compilation. I have to check also how is the support for cmake in other systems, so we can safely remove Automake and friends. But I didn't want to introduce any big changes before 3.1 is released.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
Speculation: I wonder if it's relatively easy to fuzz because the extension system already has things adapted to communicate over std in/out.
dfox 3y ago
I would suggest switching to Meson instead of CMake.
- janice1999 3y ago
  How well does Meson handle complex cross-platform projects nowadays with multiple compilers? My team tried Meson about ~3yrs ago for an embedded system. We ended up moving to CMake instead after struggling to use it for armclang.
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    It’s better, but I believe link options still is controlled a little too much by meson magic.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  I would suggest neither of those, nor ninja nor anything but make. Whatever sucks about a simple/shallow stack, what sucks about tall fat stacks is worse.
bambax 3y ago
> targeting a lot of platforms Wouldn't a project such as this one be a perfect candidate for Cosmopolitan? > Cosmopolitan Libc makes C a build-anywhere run-anywhere language, like Java, except it doesn't need an interpreter or virtual machine. Instead, it reconfigures stock GCC and Clang to output a POSIX-approved polyglot format that runs natively on Linux + Mac + Windows + FreeBSD + OpenBSD + NetBSD + BIOS on AMD64 and ARM64 with the best possible performance. https://justine.lol/cosmopolitan/ https://justine.lol/cosmopolitan/
- rodarima 3y ago
  AFAIK, Cosmopolitan only works well if your program only depends on the libc. Even if you statically compile Dillo and the FLTK, you still would need a graphic Xorg server. For Linux and BSDs may work, but in macOS I think it won't, as for that platform you need the FLTK to link against macOS graphic libraries.