fafner

21 ms·

181.
by fafner 13y ago
or systemtap https://sourceware.org/systemtap/ or ktap http://www.ktap.org/doc/tutorial.html for GNU/Linux
182.
by fafner 13y ago
Another interesting article about the F-35: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5
183.
by fafner 13y ago
You should run the compiler inside Emacs (M-x compile). That way you can easily jump to error locations. (You can also use M-x goto-line to quickly jump to a specific line)
184.
by fafner 13y ago
So you admit you were lying.
185.
by fafner 13y ago
Probably. But there are a lot of constraints and requirements on the software development process for aircraft and other critical applications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178B
186.
by fafner 13y ago
> So, no So, yes. You are simply talking bullshit because of some irrational GPL hate. If you cannot honour the license of a piece of software then you can't use it. Doesn't matter if it's free software like GCC or some co
187.
by fafner 13y ago
So why does it bother you that there are modes which you don't use? They aren't loaded as default anyway.
188.
by fafner 13y ago
> I grew frustrated trying to edit Haskell in Emacs; there are a bunch of half-baked modes out there. What's wrong with the normal haskell-mode? https://github.com/haskell/haskell-mode (interestingly another c
189.
by fafner 13y ago
They can be included in any project that can honour the GPL. Therefore it is a lie.
190.
by fafner 13y ago
A transparent background adds too much visual noise in my opinion. The same is true for line numbers.
191.
by fafner 13y ago
Why do you want line numbers next to your code at all? Aren't they just visual clutter? The current line number is shown in the mode-line anyway.
192.
by fafner 13y ago
https://github.com/Fuco1/litable
193.
by fafner 13y ago
Your basic statement is false: "GCC's parts cannot be included in other projects". That's simply a lie. > You didn't answer the question Because it's completely irrelevant.
194.
by fafner 13y ago
(scroll-bar-mode -1) and M-- 1 M-x scroll-bar-mode RET both work for me.
195.
by fafner 13y ago
They have to honour the license. Which provides and guarantees basic freedoms. But it allows the code to be reused in any project honouring the license. So your initial statement is false.
196.
by fafner 13y ago
They would have to honour GCC's license, like they have to do with clang's license or any other piece of software.
197.
by fafner 13y ago
> GCC's parts cannot be included in other projects because they are licensed in such a way that tells us that the GCC code is more important than the code we are using. That's simply not true.
198.
by fafner 13y ago
There are still commits (latest ~1 month ago) https://github.com/gccxml/gccxml/commits/master
199.
by fafner 13y ago
When was that? 10 years ago?
200.
by fafner 13y ago
GCC error messages aren't that bad. Could it be that you compare the old Apple GCC to the latest clang?
201.
by fafner 13y ago
> but the decision to architect the system so that the intermediate formats are not accessible to plugin developers. What do you mean exactly? GCC plugins provide access to all internal data structures.
202.
by fafner 13y ago
> GCC can't resolve this technical problem without abandoning this policy It seems to have been abandoned. GCC supports plugins and is working towards modularization.
203.
by fafner 13y ago
I thought they wanted to limit Apps to JavaScript. Which was kinda sad due to all the enlightenment/e17 stuff they are using. Maybe it has changed.
204.
by fafner 13y ago
> Using gcc's AST to do anything is an horrible nightmare, and you pretty much have to fork the whole gcc code base to do that anyway. GCC supports Plugins which allow you to access all internal structures. > Those things are not
205.
by fafner 13y ago
I think GCC receives a lot of undeserved hate at the moment. It is still a very good compiler which constantly improves. E.g., for my projects it generates better (faster) code. But still there are a lot of flame comments made against GCC.
206.
by fafner 13y ago
This has little to do with getting Linux on mobile. Maybe it's the motivation for some. But not the driving aspect. Samsung wants Tizen to gain back full control of their platform. Canonical wants Ubuntu Touch (and Mozilla Firefox O
207.
by fafner 13y ago
It is - by definition - not possible to have an open standard or libre implementation for DRM. You could simply implement it to dump the stream instead of displaying it. If you mean the features besides DRM then we don't need a plugin
208.
by fafner 13y ago
> The only benefit I can see from standardizing something is that browser makers who want to claim to be compliant actually have to support it, so you won't end up in the flash/silverlight situation where some platforms don&#x2
209.
by fafner 13y ago
Maybe compared to Flash and Silverlight because they provide much more. But a CDM module would still have to do all the decryption, decoding, rendering, overlaying the browser window stuff. So it would still be a rather large piece of code.
210.
by fafner 13y ago
> How is it ruining the web to remove the requirement for crappy (and, at this point, end-of-lifed) browser plugins in order to play Netflix content? Because then the Web will rely on proprietary binary crappy blobs in its basic function

More ›