Re: [dev] [scc] issues with invoking

2016-04-20 Thread k0ga
> but simplicity is more important. And yet if ye don't want to use GNU > syntax for inline assembly, then people would have to > write code to comply with scc rules. I think this force them to write these parts in assembler directly, and it opens the door to the few cases where it can be needed.

Re: [dev] [scc] issues with invoking

2016-04-20 Thread k0ga
> .S or .asm actually, .as is ActionScript. If my two cents are counted, I know several toolchains that use .as for assembler file. Regards,

Re: [dev] [scc] issues with invoking

2016-04-20 Thread Kamil Cholewiński
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote: > I read three words, but thanks anyway :) > I guess there are a lot of specific things about every single uC that > would make it worth one's while to create a highly customized compiler > for it. Somewhat agree. Code generation, optimisation pa

Re: [dev] [scc] issues with invoking

2016-04-20 Thread hiro
I read three words, but thanks anyway :) I guess there are a lot of specific things about every single uC that would make it worth one's while to create a highly customized compiler for it.

Re: [dev] [scc] issues with invoking

2016-04-20 Thread hiro
why don't you just use kencc btw?

Re: [dev] [scc] issues with invoking

2016-04-20 Thread Kamil Cholewiński
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote: > you seem to prepare writing your own operating system, but there is > already losethos, i don't recommend redoing this fine work. One word: microcontrollers

Re: [dev] [scc] issues with invoking

2016-04-20 Thread Mitt Green
k...@shike2.com wrote: This is my way of thinking, because if you need asm, then your code is not portable at all, and then it is better to move the asm to a function and coded it directly in asm in a .as file. .S or .asm actually, .as is ActionScript. If my two cents are counted, I suppose a

Re: [dev] [scc] issues with invoking

2016-04-20 Thread hiro
you seem to prepare writing your own operating system, but there is already losethos, i don't recommend redoing this fine work. On 4/20/16, k...@shike2.com wrote: >> inline assembly is irrelevant and not needed. > > This is my way of thinking, because if you need asm, then your code is > not port

Re: [dev] [scc] issues with invoking

2016-04-20 Thread k0ga
> inline assembly is irrelevant and not needed. This is my way of thinking, because if you need asm, then your code is not portable at all, and then it is better to move the asm to a function and coded it directly in asm in a .as file. I am open to discuss it, because I can understand a few cases

Re: [dev] [lnanohttp] nanonimal http server for linux

2016-04-20 Thread Sylvain BERTRAND
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 04:39:05PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 01:18:12AM +1100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:09:20PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:22:42AM +1100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > > > > On Wed, A

Re: [dev] [lnanohttp] nanonimal http server for linux

2016-04-20 Thread Dimitris Papastamos
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 01:18:12AM +1100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:09:20PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:22:42AM +1100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 09:39:43AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > > > > On Wed, A

Re: [dev] [lnanohttp] nanonimal http server for linux

2016-04-20 Thread Louis Santillan
Not really. The old asmutils httpd [0] does 100s of requests per sec (probably thousands on modern procs), is less than 1K of disk, and, 32K of RAM per fork. I've seen other versions which were used half the RAM and were just as fast as well. Just NASM compile without SENDFILE usage. Something

Re: [dev] [lnanohttp] nanonimal http server for linux

2016-04-20 Thread Lee Fallat
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > Hi, > > For my personnal use, I needed a small http server. All "mini" http servers > out > there I had a look were, IMHO, bloaty (SDK included). > > lnanohttp is really small (including dependencies and SDK), straight on linux > kerne

Re: [dev] [lnanohttp] nanonimal http server for linux

2016-04-20 Thread Sylvain BERTRAND
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:09:20PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:22:42AM +1100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 09:39:43AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 07:05:09PM +1100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > > > > quark pul

Re: [dev] [lnanohttp] nanonimal http server for linux

2016-04-20 Thread Dimitris Papastamos
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:22:42AM +1100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 09:39:43AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 07:05:09PM +1100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > > > quark pulls the posix libc. lnanohttp has 0 deps: this is straight linux > > > syscall

Re: [dev] [lnanohttp] nanonimal http server for linux

2016-04-20 Thread Sylvain BERTRAND
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 09:39:43AM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 07:05:09PM +1100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > > quark pulls the posix libc. lnanohttp has 0 deps: this is straight linux > > syscalls programming, there are no libc syscall wrappers. > > What's wrong with

Re: [dev] [scc] issues with invoking

2016-04-20 Thread hiro
inline assembly is irrelevant and not needed.

[dev] [farbfeld] More public domain utilities for farbfeld

2016-04-20 Thread farbfeld
I made up many more programs for dealing with farbfeld, including PNG conversion without libpng and zlib. These program are all public domain except for LodePNG (which I did not write). Please note it is incomplete and I may add more and/or change later. Please add a link, and if you want you can

Re: [dev] [lnanohttp] nanonimal http server for linux

2016-04-20 Thread Dimitris Papastamos
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 07:05:09PM +1100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > quark pulls the posix libc. lnanohttp has 0 deps: this is straight linux > syscalls programming, there are no libc syscall wrappers. What's wrong with libc?

Re: [dev] [lnanohttp] nanonimal http server for linux

2016-04-20 Thread Sylvain BERTRAND
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 07:46:38AM +0200, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > On 20 April 2016 at 05:17, Sylvain BERTRAND > wrote: > > For my personnal use, I needed a small http server. All "mini" http servers > > out > > there I had a look were, IMHO, bloaty (SDK included). > > Did you also look at http