[00:00] *** Sario left [00:00] *** Sario joined [00:25] with mi-malloc version 3.5 we can, as the author also suggested, use the free function where you can sometimes statically but at least at run time give it a hint whether the allocation you are freeing was a "big" one or a "small" one for what they claim is a good performance boost [01:42] *** disbot left [01:42] *** disbot joined [06:06] *** rba left [06:07] *** rba joined [06:28] *** [Coke] left [06:28] *** [Coke] joined [07:40] *** ShimmerFairy left [07:40] *** ShimmerFairy joined [09:27] *** gfldex left [09:27] *** gfldex joined [11:20] *** lizmat left [11:20] *** lizmat_ joined [11:30] *** lizmat_ left [11:30] *** lizmat joined [11:31] And yet another Rakudo Weekly News hits the Net: https://rakudoweekly.blog/2026/08/25/2026-34-yar-by-coke/ [12:01] *** lizmat_ joined [12:01] *** lizmat left [12:08] *** lizmat_ left [12:08] *** lizmat joined [14:01] Building moar on an ancient ubuntu (16.04, probably gcc 5.3.1) fails with https://paste.sr.ht/~patrickb/d00f1d426bab1944c072c6e3fc2915a21480e47f [14:04] <[Coke]> GCC 5.3December 4, 2015 [14:05] I think it's gcc being pedantic about constant expressions. What's the crowds gut feeling? Should we try to adapt zmij or our build pipeline, or adapt the release pipeline? [14:06] Yes, it's dead old. That's intentional. The distro I use to build the thing marks the lower bound where the build will run. [14:08] <[Coke]> We have other cases where we keep a copy of the 3rd party with patches and use that as our immediate upstream, aye? [14:09] We do. But the more we do that the more work every change gets. So I hope to get around that... [14:15] can you try if replacing `static const uint64_t zeros = 0x0101010101010101u * '0';` with `#define zeros ((uint64_t)(0x0101010101010101u * '0')` makes it work? [14:18] otherwise, it should also work to make it `0x3030303030303030u` because '0' is 0x30 [14:19] <[Coke]> patrickb: get around it how? if we don't update the source and we must support that compiler... [14:19] <[Coke]> you mentioned pipeline - if we use the pipeline to make the source compilabale, that's just pushing the patch from a git copy to the pipeline. [14:21] I more thought about adding some GCC option via an env var or some such... [14:21] timo: I'll try [14:23] <[Coke]> oh, ok. sure. [14:33] https://paste.sr.ht/~patrickb/d21e768a8ccf13ec7700323eddcca4572460d770 [14:33] That's the new output with the zero substitution [14:34] fgcc 6.3.0 (debian 9) fails the same [14:34] *gcc [14:34] quite possibly a C feature / syntax that this uses that's not available in those versions yet [14:34] Yeah. That's my guess. [14:35] oh [14:35] I gave you a ) too few [14:35] in the define [14:36] looks better [14:36] the zero error is gone [14:37] https://paste.sr.ht/~patrickb/92c36bce5a47624db0e290cd861c8d0dd8cbded2 [14:39] I guess we'd have to replace all these consts with a define then [14:39] I'm already trying... [14:40] div_100_sig, div_10k_sig, neg10k seem to be the only ones? [14:41] https://paste.sr.ht/~patrickb/6b22610ea1c22970dde810996d07148bd3b53d87 [14:41] doesn't like my macros yet [14:43] the first error is because there's a variable defined with the same name as the macro [14:43] so in the place where the variable name was meant to be, the macro got expanded [14:44] neg10k? [14:44] 3rdparty/zmij/zmij.c:1881:72: note: in expansion of macro 'neg10k' [14:44] const __m128i neg10k_v = _mm_load_si128((const __m128i*)&static_data.neg10k); [14:44] same here where neg10k is a field in a struct [14:45] ah, it's not a variable name it's the name of this struct field [14:45] oh [14:45] arg! [14:46] Renaming the define makes it work [14:48] https://paste.sr.ht/~patrickb/cecdda9f7f5b015a6163dfb303d69507366dd231 [14:48] That's the patch [14:51] PRit MERGEoit PROFit [15:02] https://github.com/vitaut/zmij/pull/148 [15:04] cool [19:14] *** RakuIRCLogger left [21:06] *** tbrowder left [21:06] *** tbrowder joined [21:23] ¦ MoarVM/coke/readme: 756843921b | (Will Coleda)++ | README.md [21:23] ¦ MoarVM/coke/readme: Remove reference to other backends. [21:23] ¦ MoarVM/coke/readme: review: https://github.com/MoarVM/MoarVM/commit/756843921b [21:24] ¦ MoarVM: coke++ created pull request #2036: Remove reference to other backends. [21:24] ¦ MoarVM: review: https://github.com/MoarVM/MoarVM/pull/2036