Re: [dev] [surf] which version of WebKitGTK+ do you use?

2010-09-06 Thread Alex Puterbaugh
libwebkit version 1.2.3 from webkitgtk.org Soup version 2.30.2 icu version 4.4 Good luck :) >On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 03:31:11AM +0200, Michael wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I'm having problems compiling surf and uzbl because of WebKitGTK+, so I > thought it best to check with you some things. > > W

[dev] [surf] which version of WebKitGTK+ do you use?

2010-09-06 Thread Michael
Hi everyone, I'm having problems compiling surf and uzbl because of WebKitGTK+, so I thought it best to check with you some things. Which version of WebKitGTK+ are you actually using to compile the latest versions of surf? Also, against which versions of libsoup and icu4c did you compile WebKit

Re: [dev] libdraw development

2010-09-06 Thread Kris Maglione
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 10:10:16PM +0200, Moritz Wilhelmy wrote: Why not just split it, like everybody else does? Plus, other compilers possibly don't support it. I't quite a convention for libraries, as far as I know. Instead, you make it work only with gcc, something you usually complain a

Re: [dev] libdraw development

2010-09-06 Thread Moritz Wilhelmy
Hello, Why not just split it, like everybody else does? Plus, other compilers possibly don't support it. I't quite a convention for libraries, as far as I know. Instead, you make it work only with gcc, something you usually complain about as big and sucky that has more fuss than necessary

Re: [dev] libdraw development

2010-09-06 Thread Hiltjo Posthuma
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 5:35 PM, pancake wrote: > Function per file is because the stupid gnu linker does not statically > compile functions. Only objects. Afaik. This way the resulting bin can be > smaller. > gcc has -ffunction-sections and ld has -gc-sections. >From the gcc manual: -ffunctio

Re: [dev] [OT] c syntax tree dumping tool

2010-09-06 Thread Kris Maglione
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 07:39:31PM +0200, pancake wrote: I think anselm was already interested on something like this. So we can probably take it to do a suckless sloc or a c compiler based in radare2 assembler backend. Which would be far more minimal than gcc or llvm I'd also like to see a s

Re: [dev] [OT] c syntax tree dumping tool

2010-09-06 Thread pancake
Btw. If somebody wanna check my generic parser/abstracttree check http://hg.youterm.com/alt - Original message - > On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 01:44:06PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > i'm involved in a c parsing tool project, c99tree, > > and pleased to announce its first release > > > >

Re: [dev] [OT] c syntax tree dumping tool

2010-09-06 Thread pancake
Thats great. I should take a look asap. In fact i wrote a generic abstract tree parser based on some basic parsing rules so it can parse C, javascript and others, but obviously not as well as yours. Not supporting macros and others.. I think anselm was already interested on something like this.

Re: [dev] [patch] dmenu - support for xft font rendering

2010-09-06 Thread Kris Maglione
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 01:48:15PM +0100, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote: That's no excuse for the absolutely appalling specification format. Fontconfig may be a reeking pile of insanity, but at least you can read its specs. Usually a font name by itself is enough, or with a size, 'Terminus - 12'

Re: [dev] libdraw development

2010-09-06 Thread Kris Maglione
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 12:00:27AM +0800, sqweek wrote: On 4 September 2010 21:25, Uriel wrote: On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Connor Lane Smith wrote: One file per function means a binary will only link the objects it needs, which helps keep binary size down when statically linking The l

Re: [dev] libdraw development

2010-09-06 Thread sqweek
On 4 September 2010 21:25, Uriel wrote: > On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Connor Lane Smith wrote: >> One file per function means a binary will only link the objects it > needs, which helps keep binary size down when statically linking > > The linker should be capable of including only the symbo

Re: [dev] [patch] dmenu - support for xft font rendering

2010-09-06 Thread Kurt H Maier
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote: > I've noticed how Plan's font system allows you to make a unicode font by > writing a text file referencing other fonts, and thought that was > light-years ahead of X fonts complete inability to do so. Are you saying Xft > can automatical

Re: [dev] [patch] dmenu - support for xft font rendering

2010-09-06 Thread Ethan Grammatikidis
On 6 Sep 2010, at 3:53 am, Kris Maglione wrote: On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 02:20:47AM +0100, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote: On 1 Sep 2010, at 8:30 pm, Kris Maglione wrote: On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 06:00:17PM +0100, Ethan Grammatikidis wrote: Connor Lane Smith wrote: If someone were to write a simp

Re: [dev] [patch] dmenu - support for xft font rendering

2010-09-06 Thread Ethan Grammatikidis
On 6 Sep 2010, at 5:01 am, Kris Maglione wrote: On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 11:28:17PM -0400, Josh Rickmar wrote: On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 11:02:58PM -0400, Kris Maglione wrote: I still don't think that the auto-hinter is nearly up to par with designer hinted fonts. For the fonts that I have scree