Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:FireFox - the browser for people who want less. (Score 1) 224

This fact is especially interesting when you look at the V8 source code, a lot of which makes use of SIMD by either inline asm or separate asm files for things like jpeg rendering. A lot of this is pulled from libjpeg turbo and other libraries, but there is a fair bit of that going on.

Comment Re:Dear Computer Programmers: Why do this? (Score 1) 224

Solaris "solved" the 32 / 64 bit issue the same way OS X did: a 64 bit kernel with an entirely 32 bit userland. OS X doesn't do this anymore but OpenSolaris did for quite a while. I haven't checked if this is still the case in the most recent OpenIndianas. So the seamlessness that you are referring to is simply a matter of adopting one as opposed to the other. This also limits the total address space for any given process to be the 4 GB limit. This can be problematic for something like a CAD or 3D rendering package, in which consuming 5 or 6 GB even with just memory mapped IO is the norm.

And for what it's worth, all the people saying that chrome is 32 bit only, that is likely the case only for windows:

file /usr/lib64/chromium-browser/chrome /usr/lib64/chromium-browser/chrome: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.16, stripped

Even with all of the asm included in the chromium source code it can still be built cleanly as 64 bit. Of course the same can be said about the Linux versions of Firefox, I suppose. I too am baffled why 64 bit windows support is this complicated. When developing for Windows I find all sorts of weirdness between their 64 bit and 32 bit compilers. I found the 64 bit C compiler strict about where declaring string buffers (had to be at the beginning or it wouldn't compile). The 32 bit compiler of the same version of Visual C compiled and ran the code just fine.

Comment Re:This is truly saddening... (Score 2) 635

Following up here's just one example of one of his comments from a 1997 .plan file:

I consider linux the second most important platform after win32 for id. From a biz standpoint it would be ludicrous to place it even on par with mac or os/2, but for our types of games that are designed to be hacked, linux has a big plus: the highest hacker to user ratio of any os. I don't personally develop on linux, because I do my unixy things with NEXTSTEP, but I have a lot of technical respect for it.

What happened to you, John?

Comment This is truly saddening... (Score 1) 635

for me to see my childhood hero throw FUD about market viability for my platform. John Carmack was once an open minded individual who cared about technical feats and versatility in the engine (read some of his former .plan files about comments to the portability of the OpenGL API and his efforts to port to other ISAs). This is the same man who once witnessed the leak of the quake source code, saw that a user had submitted fixes and made it compile for Linux, and then later went on to publish that user's same work as the official Id copy.

John Carmack used to be a man of principle and not cater to tempestuous marketing. With all of his influence now he says this garbage that has the potential to destroy the momentum that Valve has been generating toward a formerly unsuccessful effort? Developing games for Linux, even if it isn't a marketable success it will be a technical success and a step forward for games. When software development firms can work this closely with hardware developers and inspect EVERY piece of the stack games have the potential for more efficient hardware utilization and smoother effects.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.