00:00 Sario left, Sario joined
timo 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 00:25
01:42 disbot left, disbot joined 06:06 rba left 06:07 rba joined 06:28 [Coke] left, [Coke] joined 07:40 ShimmerFairy left, ShimmerFairy joined 09:27 gfldex left, gfldex joined 11:20 lizmat left, lizmat_ joined 11:30 lizmat_ left, lizmat joined
lizmat And yet another Rakudo Weekly News hits the Net: rakudoweekly.blog/2026/08/25/2026-...r-by-coke/ 11:31
12:01 lizmat_ joined, lizmat left 12:08 lizmat_ left, lizmat joined
patrickb Building moar on an ancient ubuntu (16.04, probably gcc 5.3.1) fails with paste.sr.ht/~patrickb/d00f1d426bab...a21480e47f 14:01
[Coke] GCC 5.3December 4, 2015 14:04
patrickb 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? 14:05
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. 14:06
[Coke] We have other cases where we keep a copy of the 3rd party with patches and use that as our immediate upstream, aye? 14:08
patrickb We do. But the more we do that the more work every change gets. So I hope to get around that... 14:09
timo can you try if replacing `static const uint64_t zeros = 0x0101010101010101u * '0';` with `#define zeros ((uint64_t)(0x0101010101010101u * '0')` makes it work? 14:15
otherwise, it should also work to make it `0x3030303030303030u` because '0' is 0x30 14:18
[Coke] patrickb: get around it how? if we don't update the source and we must support that compiler... 14:19
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.
patrickb I more thought about adding some GCC option via an env var or some such... 14:21
timo: I'll try
[Coke] oh, ok. sure. 14:23
patrickb paste.sr.ht/~patrickb/d21e768a8ccf...572460d770 14:33
That's the new output with the zero substitution
fgcc 6.3.0 (debian 9) fails the same 14:34
*gcc
timo quite possibly a C feature / syntax that this uses that's not available in those versions yet
patrickb Yeah. That's my guess.
timo oh 14:35
I gave you a ) too few
in the define
patrickb looks better 14:36
the zero error is gone
paste.sr.ht/~patrickb/92c36bce5a47...0dd8cbded2 14:37
timo I guess we'd have to replace all these consts with a define then 14:39
patrickb I'm already trying...
timo div_100_sig, div_10k_sig, neg10k seem to be the only ones? 14:40
patrickb paste.sr.ht/~patrickb/6b22610ea1c2...8bd3b53d87 14:41
doesn't like my macros yet
timo 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
patrickb neg10k? 14:44
timo 3rdparty/zmij/zmij.c:1881:72: note: in expansion of macro 'neg10k'
const __m128i neg10k_v = _mm_load_si128((const __m128i*)&static_data.neg10k);
same here where neg10k is a field in a struct
ah, it's not a variable name it's the name of this struct field 14:45
patrickb oh
arg!
Renaming the define makes it work 14:46
paste.sr.ht/~patrickb/cecdda9f7f5b...07366dd231 14:48
That's the patch
lizmat PRit MERGEoit PROFit 14:51
patrickb github.com/vitaut/zmij/pull/148 15:02
timo cool 15:04
19:14 RakuIRCLogger left 21:06 tbrowder left, tbrowder joined
Geth MoarVM/coke/readme: 756843921b | (Will Coleda)++ | README.md
Remove reference to other backends.
21:23
MoarVM: coke++ created pull request #2036:
Remove reference to other backends.
21:24