00:24:34 -!- BigZaphod has quit. 00:57:08 -!- jix has quit ("Bitte waehlen Sie eine Beerdigungnachricht"). 01:37:27 -!- calamari has joined. 01:38:58 graue: could you please test if this patch for bff causes it to work? http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/temp/bff.patch 01:39:42 at least the patch makes valgrind stop complaining 01:41:39 will do 01:42:12 thanks 01:42:51 I'm off to bed now, bye 01:43:04 bye 01:44:53 hi 01:44:59 cya pgimeno ;) 02:40:43 -!- BigZaphod has joined. 02:41:40 -!- BigZaphod has quit (Client Quit). 02:43:57 -!- BigZaphod has joined. 02:45:16 hi BigZaphod 02:45:22 hey 02:45:30 you tried writing anything in Archway2? 02:45:33 it's fun 02:45:41 :) Nope, haven't looked into it. 02:45:54 http://www.esolangs.org/wiki/Archway2 02:46:16 except without the 2 02:47:21 interesting. 02:48:38 Archway2 kind of reminds me of surfing, the cool water splashing all over my programs (in the form of / and \) 02:49:28 it would be nice to go rent a beach house for a week and code Archway2 while glancing occasionally out the window, and listening to the relaxing sounds of the ocean 02:49:32 it reminded me of a fractal 02:49:40 you're more abstract than me 02:49:44 that'd be an ice excuse.. :-) 02:49:46 er.. nice 02:49:55 (ice, too, if its winter, I suppose) 02:50:13 it would be summer 02:50:43 what part of the world are you in? (how far is the ocean for you?) 02:50:58 I've only seen ocean from far above in a plane. 02:51:08 I'm in the eastern United States 02:51:25 I'm in the Iowa. We don't get much ocean here.. :-) 02:51:33 the ocean would be three or four hours away by car, at least 02:52:01 that's not so bad. at least a couple days for me. 03:23:06 pgimeno: the patch didn't fix it 03:30:13 -!- calamari has quit ("Leaving"). 03:42:40 BigZaphod: Only two days if you get a copilot and take turns sleeping. 03:43:12 you mean two hours, right? 03:45:59 maybe if you have an aircraft. 03:46:31 that'd be a really fast aircraft.. I think by jet it's still about an hour just to Chicago from here. 03:47:13 unless its supersonic. 03:52:16 two days would be a really slow aircraft, though 03:52:27 I assumed the unit was wrong 05:40:55 Oregon here. 05:40:59 Only about an hour from the beach. 05:41:12 But the Oregon ocean is cold and unappealing. 05:41:30 (That is, the Pacific ocean by Oregon) 05:42:46 -!- heatsink has quit ("Leaving"). 05:43:47 GregorR, how goes? 06:04:46 It's still goin'. 06:32:45 I find that answer largely unappealing 06:50:56 -!- BigZaphod has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 07:24:00 -!- graue has quit ("Donate a manual typewriter to ME for your only hope for a future!"). 07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended). 08:00:00 -!- clog has joined. 08:21:57 -!- ZeroOne_ has quit (Remote closed the connection). 09:52:00 -!- grimace_ has joined. 10:02:55 -!- sp3tt has joined. 12:33:54 -!- kipple__ has joined. 13:50:40 -!- jix has joined. 14:16:10 -!- puzzlet has quit (Client Quit). 14:16:12 -!- puzzlet has joined. 14:50:49 -!- fungebob has joined. 15:59:43 -!- kipple___ has joined. 15:59:43 -!- kipple__ has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 16:06:48 jix: there? 16:26:16 -!- yrz\werk has joined. 16:37:20 -!- yrz\werk_ has quit (Connection timed out). 16:43:16 pgimeno: yes 17:01:31 -!- sp3tt has quit (Client Quit). 17:24:02 -!- calamari has joined. 17:24:03 hi 17:24:20 moin calamari 17:24:28 hi jix 17:24:36 how's your new adventure game going? 17:24:49 lowest priority 17:24:59 i'm working on my brainfuck-compiler 17:25:37 the next thing i want to do is my website 17:25:37 -> bf or bf -> ? 17:25:44 hi calamari 17:25:46 bf -> 17:25:46 jix: can you try bff on mac? 17:25:49 hi pgimeno 17:26:03 jix: to what language.. c? 17:26:04 pgimeno: i did, it doesn't work 17:26:24 calamari: first ruby (for testing) later c or maybe asm 17:26:29 jix: nifty 17:26:47 you should still enter your other adventure game.. maybe spiff it up a bit :) 17:27:17 made a bit of progress on mine last night, so it's on my mind hehe 17:27:28 when is the deadline? 17:27:33 sept 1 17:28:06 it 17:28:30 it'll be hard for me to finish in time, since I'm not working on it very often 17:29:31 jix: did you try with my patch? 17:30:30 pgimeno: patch? 17:31:08 http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/temp/bff.patch - would you mind to try applying it and see if it works? 17:32:04 -!- sp3tt has joined. 17:33:24 pgimeno: works! 17:33:33 nice! 17:34:53 i had some problems with modulo math yesterday... i solved it... brute-forcing and storing the table in the output-program 17:35:10 that's faster anyway 17:35:26 only 64kb in the worst case 17:38:56 when will we see a release? 17:39:14 today or tomorrow 17:39:32 i have to complete stage2 of optimisation and write stage3 17:41:53 cool 17:45:42 the code is chaotic... 17:45:48 it's ruby code but it's chaotic 17:46:05 i just started coding without writing down all optimizations first 17:50:47 -!- graue has joined. 17:51:20 my intermediate language has an "if cell is divisible by 2^n zero cell else infinity loop" instruction... 17:52:05 it's mnemonic is if_divtxilzeif 17:53:34 ok it's not zero but set_to now.. that's important for stage3 optimizations 17:55:07 5,4kb code 18:07:18 -!- fungebob has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 18:07:57 jix: what about code that changes the loop variable.. such as ++++[--->+<-].. very contrived, but it could happen in a nested [ ] 18:10:28 -!- grimace_ has left (?). 18:10:53 ++++[--->+<-] => [0]+4,mov_mul([0],-4,[1]+1) 18:11:42 add 4 to cell 0, do a mov_mul instruction with field 0 as counter -4 as increment and [1]+1 as action 18:12:07 the mov_mul instruction is a bit complex but fast even with ++[--->+<] 18:12:29 -!- graue has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 18:12:32 that's where i use the upto 64kb lookuptable 18:15:46 hmm it's only 32kb... 18:41:59 jix: sorry, that's what I meant by contrived.. let's see if I can show more clearly what I meant: ++++[>+>+[<<+++++>>-]<------] 18:42:22 that's off the top of my head.. sorry for any errors :) 18:42:51 that should translate to +++++[>+<-] if I did it right 18:43:29 maybe there's a missing < ? 18:43:42 like: <<------] 18:43:53 yeah, after ] it should be << 18:44:20 anyhow.. does your alg pick up that it is -1 not -6 ? 18:44:52 or does it handle nested loops like that? :) 18:45:08 oh well, who writes obfuscated BF anyway? :) 18:45:19 pgimeno: that's not 18:45:25 it's just a simple example 18:45:36 j/k 18:45:51 I could come up with a more complicated real-life example, but the idea would be obscured 18:46:44 someone should invent BF++ 18:46:54 hehe 18:47:27 or P.. take P'' and integrate a couple times ;) 18:48:00 heh, nice idea :) 18:48:38 I was wondering... does the world need a 1-symbol language? 18:50:01 well, it depends.. lets say you figured out a way to mutate bf into one symbol, but when the program ran it figured out the original 8 bf instructions and ran it that way.. then I'd say no 18:50:23 but if it is just one symbol and a tarpit, that'd be cool.. is it possible? 18:50:55 NULL is sort of that already, you just have to express a NULL program in unary 18:51:05 note that one symbol is the same as using file size for the program :) 18:51:14 yup 18:51:22 (except for comments) 18:51:39 But you have a _really_ efficient source code compression algorithm: use a binary number that tells how many of the symbol there are. :p 18:52:54 it would kind of lose some of the magic though... 18:53:30 somehow I think 2 symbols would be the minimum without cheating 18:54:09 actually it's pretty hard to define cheating 18:54:18 yeah it is 18:54:54 I was thinking... a hello world program would need like... many gigs 18:55:08 I'd consider cheating having it interpret more instructions than there are symbols.. just my bias tho :) 18:55:55 that one instruction can be wonderfully complex, though.. hehe 18:56:28 my decision is that the world is already good enough without a 1-symbol language 18:57:06 are there non-cheating 2 symbol languages? seems like there was a lamda calc.. iota or jot or something? 18:57:16 lambda 18:57:28 or do they require 3? 18:57:39 no, both iota and jot are 2-symbol 18:57:43 nifty 18:57:54 how many instructions.. just 2, right ? 18:57:59 jot programs are any string of 0's and 1's 18:58:06 including the empty string 18:58:30 in iota the instructions are * and i, but not all programs are syntactically valid 18:59:18 lets say I did 01.. does it internally translate that into a different intstruction? 18:59:37 -!- fungebob has joined. 18:59:41 or 00 or 10 or whatever 18:59:51 if not, then I'd say it is the tarpit winner :) 18:59:57 I don't know enough lambda calculus as to answer 19:00:03 yeah, neither do I 19:00:17 what do you call a different instruction? 19:00:37 lets take a different example 19:00:41 i think it doesn't cheat, in the sense you mean 19:00:44 I can go along 00101000111 19:01:07 now I take 00 = 0, 01 = 1, 10 = 2, 11 = 3.. now I have 4 instructions, not 2 19:01:15 From what I remember of iota/jot, I don't think neither of them cheat in that way. 19:01:21 cool! 19:01:24 nope, there are 2 instructions 19:02:00 bbl..meeting time 19:02:06 -!- calamari has quit ("Leaving"). 19:02:16 "Sorry! The wiki is experiencing some technical difficulties, and cannot contact the database server. 19:02:16 Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/tmp/mysql.sock' (2)" 19:02:32 is it just me? 19:11:55 -!- yrz\werk_ has joined. 19:14:41 i'm not doing much nested loop optimizations 19:15:01 but i can add some in stage 3 19:22:36 The new optimizations are in on egobf, but I must admit that it doesn't look good. 19:22:42 ...for the rest of you! BWAHA! 19:23:33 GregorR: time for mandelbrot.b? 19:24:31 GregorR: or actually, time compared to BF2C+gcc -O2? 19:24:45 OK, OK, we all know that comparing it to a compiler is unfair. 19:25:01 unfair? ;) 19:25:06 why? 19:25:16 Because compilers will implicitly be faster. 19:25:23 GregorR: why? 19:25:32 Well, I guess I do need to time both steps *shrugs* 19:25:37 we just proved yesterday that it can be slower 19:25:48 Anyway, I'm actually at work right now, I just logged in to brag about the morning commute's work :P 19:25:49 if you count the compilation time 19:25:56 heh 19:26:14 lindi-: we proved that even with -O0 it's faster didn't we? 19:26:50 -!- yrz\werk has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 19:27:30 -!- cyph1e has joined. 19:28:29 jix: okok, but if we had changed the program a bit it would have ran faster and thus compilation time would have been more signigficant 19:29:30 but if the converter would output (*p)+=10 instead of 10 times (*p)++ gcc would be a lot faster 19:29:57 jix: possibly 19:30:06 i'm not 100% sure 19:30:28 with -O0 it would be as good as with -O1 and 10x (*p)++ 19:30:35 and -O0 is very fast 19:30:55 it's alot easier to optimize brainfuck code than optimizing c code 19:31:12 hmm 19:31:57 jix: gcc converts to GIMPLE first anyway and then optimizes the GIMPLE representation 19:32:19 lindi-: it's still easier to optimize bf than optimize GIMPLE 19:32:27 perhaps 19:33:18 in brainfuck it's easy to detect multiplication which is implemented using addition... in c/GIMPLE it's not that easy 19:33:52 hmm 19:42:41 jix: now that you mention this it seems that gcc doesn't know how to optimize int mul(int a, int b) { int c; c = a; while(b--) c += a; return c; } to c=a*b 19:43:01 -!- Keymaker has joined. 19:43:23 hello world 19:43:42 i was in cottage for three days 19:44:04 made up two new quine-technique-ideas for brainfuck 19:44:18 the other was ~1300 bytes and the other 1028 iirc 19:44:36 too bad couldn't make 'em shorter.. i'll try sometime again 19:50:08 i'm near done with stage2 19:50:37 and it's still not broken (but the A2Ruby class generates slow ruby code A2C has to be faster) 19:51:28 hmm, there has been probably something nice happening..? could anyone sum up. i'm too lazy to read the logs 19:54:25 i'm writing a optimizing brainfuck compiler 19:54:35 sounds cool 19:55:11 but it outputs ruby code atm 19:55:17 'ok 19:55:18 and function calls in ruby are slow 19:55:24 so the output is slow too 19:55:31 ok 19:55:55 i'm going to add c and x86 asm output 20:05:10 done with stage2 20:05:24 1. C output 20:05:29 2: stage 3 optimizations 20:08:21 -!- kipple__ has joined. 20:08:22 -!- kipple___ has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 20:13:33 hi Keymaker 20:14:19 we've been doing benchmarks of BF interpreters/compilers 20:15:03 ok 20:15:12 (and hi) 20:15:15 -!- yrz\werk1 has joined. 20:15:29 jix: would this work properly in your interpreter?: [->] (decrement and skip to next until zero found) 20:16:11 pgimeno: in my interpreter? 20:16:18 er compiler, sorry 20:16:29 everything would work properly 20:16:55 ah ok 20:17:00 mandelbrot.b uses moving loops.. and it works 20:17:06 but nonmoving loops are faser 20:17:09 faster 20:17:15 does the compiler create an interpreter? 20:18:00 it creates c code 20:18:14 -!- cmeme has quit ("Client terminated by server"). 20:18:16 ok.. 20:18:35 which does the same thing as the bf code 20:18:42 ah 20:18:44 the c code doesn't interpret the bf code 20:18:49 yes 20:18:58 it's like bf2c but with optimizations 20:19:02 i see now 20:20:22 -!- yrz\werk1 has quit (Client Quit). 20:22:10 oh and infinity loops use < 1% cpu! 20:22:25 -!- yrz\werk1 has joined. 20:23:02 -!- yrz\werk_ has quit (Client Quit). 20:37:08 i'm at 12kb code 20:46:47 m[0]+=3; v = m[0]; if(v){m[1]-=v*3; m[0]=0;}; m[1]+=1; putchar(m[1]); 20:48:01 [--] => if(m[0]&1) while(1){sleep(-1);};else m[0]=0; 20:49:28 oops... a little bug 20:49:52 wrong sign for :p_mov_mul and :n_mov_mul 20:50:28 who are you talking to? can we see the code somewhere? 20:50:40 cyph1e: the code isn't complete 20:50:53 the c generator is missing the REALLOC macro and the init/cleanup code 20:56:28 allright.. may I ask you what optimization your compiler (or translator) does? I've never written a compiler, just an interpreter 20:56:28 it optimizes all loops without input/output and balanced < and > 's to multiplications (there are a few exceptions but they are rare) 20:56:28 and it optimizes some other special things 20:56:28 I'm vaguely considering putting a backend on egobf that compiles to memory then runs it, that ought to be blazin' fast. But also difficult to write. 20:56:28 -!- BigZaphod has joined. 20:56:28 I'd like to see your code that optimizes all loops with balanced >><<. 20:56:28 I couldn't do it in a way that was more efficient than running them :P 20:56:28 GregorR: but you could call it jiting interpreter... 20:56:28 jix: Not quite, it's not just in time, it compiles before it runs. 20:56:28 -!- sp3tt_ has joined. 20:56:28 I decided that loops made it too difficult to just compile ahead, and just compiling everything outside of loops wouldn't be THAT great of an improvement. 20:56:28 -!- calamari has joined. 20:56:28 hello 20:56:28 GregorR: a jit-compiler compiles a routine before it gets executed.. bf code has no subroutines so you may call it jit-compiling ;) 20:56:28 moin calamari 20:56:28 re jix 20:56:28 Heheh, I guess I can agree with that :) 20:56:28 Hoi squiddy. 20:56:28 (Wait, is calamari squid? Or octopus? I can't remember...) 20:56:28 calamari: i don't think my compiler optimizes the code you gave me well 20:56:28 squid, you got it :) 20:56:36 jix: that's okay, as long as it doesn't produce incorrect results 20:57:25 how is your curse word language going? 20:57:43 fsc or something like that, heh 21:00:40 curse word language? 21:01:35 calamari: output for your example: m[0]+=4; var_b=m+0; while(*var_b){m[1]+=1; m[2]+=1; v = m[2]; if(v){f = lut_126[v]; m[0]+=f*5; m[2]=0;}; m[0]+=250;} 21:02:16 ah just noted that there is still space for optimizations 21:02:40 var_b=m+0 ... i could use m instead of var_b beacuse m doesn't change if i use that code snippet 21:03:44 hmm no i shouldn't use the extra_vars at all.. gcc does better optimizations for that anyway 21:05:08 pretty cool :) 21:05:32 lut_* are random looking look-up-tables 21:06:01 i use them for [odd number of + or ->something<] 21:06:28 i was only able to generate them using the help of a computer algebra system 21:06:33 hehe 21:06:52 i generated the init numbers for the look-up-tables 21:07:10 they are: [255, 85, 51, 73, 199, 93, 59, 17, 15, 229, 195, 89, 215, 237, 203, 33, 31, 117, 83, 105, 231, 125, 91, 49, 47, 5, 227, 121, 247, 13, 235, 65, 63, 149, 115, 137, 7, 157, 123, 81, 79, 37, 3, 153, 23, 45, 11, 97, 95, 181, 147, 169, 39, 189, 155, 113, 111, 69, 35, 185, 55, 77, 43, 129, 127, 213, 179, 201, 71, 221, 187, 145, 143, 101, 67, 217, 87, 109, 75, 161, 159, 245, 211, 233, 103, 253, 219, 177, 175, 133, 99, 249, 119, 141, 107, 193, 191, 21:07:10 21, 243, 9, 135, 29, 251, 209, 207, 165, 131, 25, 151, 173, 139, 225, 223, 53, 19, 41, 167, 61, 27, 241, 239, 197, 163, 57, 183, 205, 171, 1] 21:07:30 init numbers? 21:07:34 yes 21:07:42 what is an init number? 21:07:49 initial.. 21:07:57 what is an inital number ? 21:08:03 a number to start with 21:08:30 (init*n) mod 256 where init is the init number of the table and n is the item number of the table 21:09:09 oh, the starting value of the loop variable? 21:09:16 no 21:09:19 the name was stupid 21:09:39 I don't get it, but that's okay :) 21:09:51 it's the result of re-editting source code the 10th time 21:09:53 ^^ 21:10:04 I wonder how much loop unrolling can be done 21:10:24 i do no loop unrolling 21:10:38 i only do loop elimination 21:11:28 -!- cyph1e has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 21:12:04 -!- sp3tt has quit (Client Quit). 21:39:20 bbl 21:39:23 -!- calamari has quit ("Leaving"). 21:44:37 mandelbrot: 0.65 secs bf=>c, 13.6 secs gcc with -O2, 7.8secs mandelbrot 21:45:26 on my 1ghz ppc g4 with finder,terminal,safari,adium,quicktimeplayer,xchat-aqua,quicksilver and subethaedit running 21:53:10 only some output fine tuning left until beta-release 21:53:18 stage3 is empty atm 21:56:45 Yay, my gcc is now "powerpc-apple-darwin8-gcc-4.0.0 (GCC) 4.0.0 20041026 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 4061)". (Installed Tiger and xcode2.) 22:00:22 gcc version 4.0.0 20041026 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 4061) 22:00:33 but xcode2.1 is out afaik, 22:00:42 i hate to download xcode 22:01:18 gcc (GCC) 4.1.0 20050720 (experimental) 22:02:00 maybe xcode2.1 has gcc 4.1.0 22:02:37 I used to have xcode1.5, caused some trouble with fink, but didn't bother to upgrade to 1.9 before installing Tiger. 22:03:07 What's new in 4.1? Better loop-autovectorization and/or instruction-scheduling? 22:03:17 dunno 22:03:25 1h46m remaining... 22:03:32 752mb dmg 22:04:13 I see three neighbouring WEP-enabled wlans: "overland", "aurinko" and "animalfarm". 22:05:22 mandelbrot.b 11669 byte mandelbrot.c 23835 byte mandelbrot 45676 byte output 6240 byte ^^ 22:08:31 fizzie: haven't really been following anything except the libjava/ directory, but yes, some autovetorization stuff has afaik also improved. also, 4.1 is not out yet so they have time to improve it before official release 22:14:33 http://www.harderweb.de/jix/langs/brainfuck/bf2a.rb 22:14:56 didn't compared it against bf2c 22:18:50 ah made a mistake 22:18:54 -!- sp3tt_ has quit (Client Quit). 22:18:56 there is still some debugging code 22:19:03 that will flood your terminal 22:19:40 fixed 22:20:47 nother error 22:21:49 fixed 22:22:13 argh 22:22:15 not fixed 22:25:22 fixed! 22:27:49 everyone: please test it 22:31:50 ... 22:31:57 pgimeno: ping 22:40:06 no one is here :'( 22:42:33 i'm here but can't test it 22:42:41 i don't have any ruby software 22:42:42 Keymaker: why? 22:42:48 and i'm not on my home computer 22:43:04 windows? 22:43:07 yes 22:43:23 maybe i can create a stand-alone exe 22:43:31 do you have gcc? 22:43:47 no 22:43:59 ok.. than you really can't test it 22:44:09 yeah 22:44:28 but.. i have mingw 22:45:41 the mingw package comes with gcc(?) 22:46:04 it does 22:46:06 dunno 22:46:21 but it probably doesn't matter what c compiler it uses..? 22:46:27 Keymaker: yes 22:46:30 oh 22:46:39 yes it doesn't metter 22:46:56 but i only tried gcc 22:47:16 ah. ok 22:47:17 but i don't know where to get a windows ruby binary 22:47:25 well, me neither 22:47:28 all binary versions i know use an installer 22:47:34 and i wouldn't like to install any ruby stuff here 22:47:51 why not? ruby is a great langauge? *g* 22:48:04 well, it would have no use here :) 22:48:20 why? 22:48:37 because nobody would program in it 22:48:51 yes but maybe someone wants to run ruby programs? 22:48:55 no 22:49:06 trust me 22:49:10 you want to run bf2a right? 22:49:23 well, yes, but without installing any new software 22:49:30 okokok... 22:49:37 you could always send me 22:49:41 the c code 22:49:47 that the compiler has generated 22:49:54 out of that fractal brainfuck program 22:49:56 for example 22:51:19 www.harderweb.de/jix/langs/brainfuck/mandelbrot.c.zip 22:52:24 i'll try 22:52:38 i tried to compiler Lost Kingdom.. Out of stack space. 22:53:49 works great 22:54:14 (although 80x25 window probably isn't meant for that program) 22:54:32 80x25 is too small 22:54:50 yeah 22:54:54 good work jix 22:55:46 definitely beats the **** out of those compilers that don't optimize at all 22:57:19 btw, if i do an array in c like this way a[]={3,2,1} 22:57:30 is there a way to get the size of the array? 22:58:07 sizeof(a) 22:58:18 afaik 22:58:37 but i'm not sure 22:58:38 ok 23:03:23 jix: bfa2.rb mandelbrot.b mandelbrot.c ; gcc mandelbrot.c -o mandelbrot -O2 ; ./mandelbrot segfaults 23:03:43 aaargggh 23:04:05 but it works here 23:04:19 and keymaker was able to compiler and run mandelbrot.c too 23:04:23 hmm 23:04:24 lindi-: what's your gcc version? 23:04:39 this time i used gcc (GCC) 3.4.3 20050227 (Red Hat 3.4.3-22.fc3) 23:04:54 jix: can you put the C source file online? 23:04:55 try 4.1 23:05:05 www.harderweb.de/jix/langs/brainfuck/mandelbrot.c.zip 23:05:48 segfaults with gcc cvs head too 23:06:12 and the C file is identical 23:06:22 jix: what version of gcc did you use? 23:07:01 works with gcc 2.95 23:07:30 jix: either you depend on undefined behavior or this is regression 23:10:27 Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 23:10:27 main (argc=1, argv=) at mandelbrot.c:336 23:10:28 336 m[-7]+=m[29]; 23:12:03 jix: m = (unsigned char *) 0x9b6e006 "",m_srt = (unsigned char *) 0x9b6e008 "",m_min = (unsigned char *) 0x9b6e00f "",m_max = (unsigned char *) 0x9b6ea9b "",m_size = 3089,m_p = 134560282,v = 0 '\0',f = 239 'ï' 23:13:13 jix: hope that helps, please ask if you need more info 23:42:57 -!- Aardwolf has joined. 23:50:08 one word of warning against gcc-4.0.0: http://swox.com/list-archives/gmp-discuss/2005-July/001752.html (it applies to ia64 mostly, though) 23:50:52 -!- graue has joined. 23:52:12 jix: sorry to be late when you needed testing; your compiler is currently best: {^Raven^}'s: 4.564real/4.114user, yours: 3.738real/3.298user 23:55:53 lindi-: argh 23:56:04 aaarrgghhh! 23:56:11 lindi-: helps a lot 23:56:25 m segfault 23:57:07 but wait m and the brainfuck tape has one end 23:58:43 lindi-: i used gcc 4.0.0 23:58:55 me goes sleep-mode 23:58:59 good nite 23:59:10 -!- Keymaker has quit ("Funkadelic!"). 23:59:59 gcc version 3.3 20030304 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 1809) works too