| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Comments:
<0> o.O
<1> calc xlib
<2> (x86) Did you ever have *** with Xlib?
<1> searchcalc xlib
<2> index: 2752. results: xlib
<0> ive borked zlib tho
<0> :>
<1> wat
<0> uranther: is xlib a c library for making linux X apps?
<1> yes
<1> it's part of X
<0> know of any good tutorials on it?
<1> nope
<0> ive been searching the net for a few days now, gone through GTK tutorials, wxWindows tutorials, QT and whatnot, but havent found a good comprehensive tutorial
<3> I don't think you'll find a X tutorial... Get a book or read man pages
<0> perhaps once i get a hang of it i should write one then :)
<3> :) I have done some X a while ago, it's really as low-level as you can get... Are you sure you wouldn't rather want gtk2?
<4> I've done xforms
<4> And some Cocoa.
<4> mmm cocoa
<0> Maloeran: i dont really care what libs to use, as long as i can make guis for kde/gnome
<0> is opengl coding in C complicated for linux?
<3> You should try to use something like gtk, not everybody uses either kde or gnome
<0> ive done some in win32 in the past, with "NeHe's OpenGL Tutorial" :>
<3> Quite simple, I have abundant opengl programming
<3> And stay very far away from Nehe's tutorials
<3> Get that : http://www.opengl.org/documentation/red_book/
<5> Maloeran: gimmie your ray tracer so I can benchmark it :P
<0> Maloeran: true, but as i said, ive been looking for days for a GTK tutorial or wxWin or QT etc, but didnt find anything comprehensive enough
<3> have done*
<3> I thought gtk had a good tutorial on the official website
<3> http://www.gtk.org/tutorial/
<3> Caligo, you'll find ogl programming on unix much simpler than on windows, especially regarding extensions
<0> Maloeran: cool
<0> there we go.. downloading the redbook
<3> The paper version covers more recent features like vertex and fragment programs, but the basics of 3d rasterization graphics haven't changed
<3> Once you are done with the redbook, GLSL specs or extension specifications can cover the rest
<0> Maloeran: youre saying the paper version is more complete than the pdf?! :S
<0> its usually the other way around
<3> The paper version is more recent
<0> ah, i see now, version 1.1 in pdf, version 2 in paper
<5> Maloeran: Gimmie your raytracer
<0> guess its so they can make money
<3> Can't, zid_
<5> you solded it to someone?
<3> No, but it isn't open-source yet either
<5> I didn't ASK for the source, not that i'd know what to do with it
<3> There are new techniques one could find out from a compiled binary
<3> I only do demos when I'm physically there :p
<5> you're such a spoil sport
<5> I wanna do a benchmark
<5> what the ****** would I do with it, seriously
<3> I'm just not taking any chance, I don't want to see patents put on the techniques behind my back
<5> don't patents and professional decompilations require more than the 37p I have? :p
<6> man, i swear i left the weed at home
<6> i'm ****ing delirious
<6> there's no "single step" button in visual studio
<7> when writing optimized code, is it faster to do: if (uint_var != 0) or: if (uint_var > 0) ?
<8> xi_: Maybe.
<9> if the compiler does things right they compile to roughly the same thing, at least on x86
<3> No difference, unless you just modified uint_var before the comparison on some archs
<5> it'd be a jnz regardless wouldn't it?
<7> well of course it is modified, otherwise i wouldn't need to check it
<3> Go for != 0 to be on the safe side
<7> i call a func(&uint_var) which sets it to something, then after fun() i check it
<3> I meant if you just executed an instruction that modifies uint_var, it isn't the case then
<8> I'd just do if "(uint_var) { ... }"
<8> Err.
<8> I'd just do "if (uint_var) { ... }"
<8> That is, after all, the idiom, and a compiler is likely to know how to optimize it properly.
<10> if(func()) {...} is better anyway
<10> rewrite func() to return the value
<11> twkm, i got the signals and threads to work together
<12> did you sell your sibs?
<11> sibs?
<13> Siblings?
<12> yes.
<14> haha
<4> Does UPS or FedEx delivery today?
<8> Is today a holiday?
<12> unlikely.
<11> haha
<4> twkm: Yeah.
<4> hund: Independence Day.
<12> their courier divisions might.
<8> Ah, right.
<11> i didnt sell any siblings
<11> it works nice and easy
<12> plenty of masking and sigwait worked out?
<11> pthread_kill and a volatile int does it fine
<12> *shudder*
<8> Well, international business doesn't sleep, and there are plenty of companies in foreign markets, UPS and FedEx work for them, so they will certainly deliver if you're the right person.
<12> i hope you aren't hoping that'll be portable.
<8> Or company.
<11> twkm, it will be portable on linux
<12> hund: the key is, paying the american worker to deliver today would cost 3 times what it does any other weekday.
<12> kvasov: i doubt it.
<11> i am not coding for freebsd or windows
<11> why is that?
<8> twkm: Better be a company, then. :)
<11> i am using standard functionality defined by posix
<12> hund: they don't normally have sunday delivery either, and very limited saturday -- mostly because of the cost of the unionized delivery drivers.
<12> kvasov: posix doesn't guarantee that volatile make something thread-safe.
<11> that's true
<11> but the context under which i am using it is thread safe
<12> kvasov: i'll take your word for it, and pray i never use it.
<11> it seems stable :-)
<11> http://stank.ath.cx/sn.png
<11> here is a screenshot
<15> welp there went my four day idle time
<4> hey chorgy
<11> twkm, did you see the screenshot?
<12> yes, though it says little enough.
<11> it's a per process firewall
<11> with policies
<11> and ability to jail processes on the fly with a different uid
<12> *shrug*
<11> it's handy for firefox/thunderbird/gaim/xchat
<16> hmmm....
<16> Are plasma tv's any good?
<12> yes.
<12> about 10 times the price of an lcd the same size.
<16> oh
<16> okay
<16> they seemed to be in the same range from what I was seeing.
<16> but I was wondering how they are for longevity
<17> MarkT-: I did some research and 1280x1024 LCD panels still have square pixels. They have a 5:4 aspect ratio instead of 4:3.
<17> Just an FYI.
<16> teck: okay
<16> teck: I can't say I'm suprised, based on what I know about lcd displays, but I _am_ suprised they ever bothered with 1280x1024 for lcds, since they can
<16> t keep it 4:3
<17> MarkT-: I'm not sure why they didn't stick with 4:3 and use something like 1152x864.
<17> Or 1280x960 (or whatever 4:3 works out to be).
<4> yeah, 960
<4> I want dual wide screens
<4> Right now I have a 21" CRt and a 17" LCD
<16> I can't use LCD screens... the pixels are too big on screens that are a decent size and the picture is too small otherwise.
<11> what's a decent size LCD?
<11> there's 24" < .25 pixel size
<3> Old good CRTs work quite fine for me
<11> they are huge
<3> So? :)
<16> kvasov: 19" is reasonable.
<11> i got two LCDs and i basically replaced two 19"
<11> now i have a desk
<16> but 19" lcds only support 1280x1024 usually.
<11> you can get smaller fonts
<16> smaller fonts are unreadable because the pixels are too big.
<8> You're so spoiled.
<11> the new 20" that are coming out can do higher res and they are pretty cheap
<16> I want *AT LEAST* 100dpi
Return to
#c
or
Go to some related
logs:
#politics
#gamedev
double to hex vb.net
#nhl
#nhl
Joe Lilybell
ubuntu deryl download
hangs on searching for previous versions
#politics
XP expanded memory device driver LIM EMS 4.0
|
|
