ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/fractdev/archive/v01.n009

Internet Message Format | 1998-06-11 | 40KB

From: [e-mail] (fractdev-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: fractdev-digest V1 #9
Reply-To: fractdev-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


fractdev-digest        Thursday, June 11 1998        Volume 01 : Number 009




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 23:38:38 -0400
From: "Damien M. Jones" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) Fractint porting

Tim,

 - I'm particularly intrigued with the Win95/DirectX port of Allegro as a
 - porting possibility.

DirectX would be overkill for what FractInt needs.  However, if it's part
of a Windows port of Allegro, then you're basically getting it for free.
Keep in mind, though, that some older systems don't have good DirectDraw
support, and can lock up or crash with despairing regularity with programs
that try to use DirectDraw.  Newer cards don't have this problem.

Damien M. Jones   \\
[e-mail]  \\  http://www.icd.com/tsd/ (temporary sanity designs)
                    \\  http://www.fractalus.com/ (fractals are my hobby)

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 09:59:47 EDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) Fractint porting

In a message dated 98-06-01 23:29:02 EDT, you write:

<< I've started actively researching a new development environment for
Fractint. I
 bought Microsoft Visual C/C++ with that in mind.

 My tentative conclusion after a survey this weekend is to port fractint to
djgpp
 with the allegro library. This is the extended DOS port of the GNU C
compiler,
 along with a game graphics library. Some of the pluses of this are:

 1. free platform
 2. excellent, fast compiler
 3. ready porting to Win95 and Linux

 The main downside is that porting the assembler would be tricky, so we'd take
 a performance hook.

 I'm particularly intrigued with the Win95/DirectX port of Allegro as a
porting
 possibility.

 Comments? >>
Tim,
I am currently unemployed as a result of a consulting group that downsized my
company and eliminated a layer of management. I may finally have time to be a
real participant. I would at least like to contribute to the true color
algorithm side. I believe Terry is now using my algorithm as one of the
options with his program.
Ron Barnett

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 14:06:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (fractdev) Fractint porting

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Tim Wegner wrote:

> I've started actively researching a new development environment for Fractint. I
> bought Microsoft Visual C/C++ with that in mind.
>
> My tentative conclusion after a survey this weekend is to port fractint to djgpp
> with the allegro library. This is the extended DOS port of the GNU C compiler,
> along with a game graphics library.

I think this is a good idea.  I'm currently trying to compile fractint
with djgpp...if I ever get it working, I'll let y'all know how it goes...

- -------------------------------------------+-------------------------------
Cliff Crawford                             |            Windows NT crashed.
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/cjc26/ | I am the Blue Screen of Death.
                                           |     No one hears your screams.

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 22:07:35 +0100
From: "Christian Strik" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) Fractint porting

Cliff wrote:

<<snipped>>
>I'm currently trying to compile fractint with djgpp...if I ever get it
working

Is it so the problem you're having is an exception 0x0E (page fault) when
starting any djgpp compiler/debugger? If so, I'm having the same problem.
Does anybody know a solution? I'm currently using TurboC++ 3.0, but want to
switch to djgpp asap.

Christian




- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 16:27:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (fractdev) Fractint porting

On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Christian Strik wrote:

> Is it so the problem you're having is an exception 0x0E (page fault) when
> starting any djgpp compiler/debugger? If so, I'm having the same problem.
> Does anybody know a solution? I'm currently using TurboC++ 3.0, but want to
> switch to djgpp asap.

Hmm, not exactly sure what's going on.  Did you install everything
correctly, including setting the path and the environment variable?
("set DJGPP=C:\DJGPP\DJGPP.ENV") I remember at first I forgot to do that
and all sorts of weird problems occured.

No, the problems I'm having are with the source code itself not being
compatible.  I think I'm gonna try compiling the xfractint source
instead (since djgpp is so unix-ish), I might have more luck with that.

- -------------------------------------------+-------------------------------
Cliff Crawford                             |            Windows NT crashed.
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/cjc26/ | I am the Blue Screen of Death.
                                           |     No one hears your screams.

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 00:06:16 -0400
From: "Peter Gavin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: (fractdev) Fractint porting

The problems I'm having with compiling it using DJGPP are all the =
#define in 'port.h'.  It seem to me that the best way would be to make a =
section combining the XFRACT section and the MSDOS section.  Well, you =
may just be able to do it by copying the 'remove far' section to the =
MSDOS section.  I really haven't had the time to mess with it that much, =
unfortunately...  :(



Pete
<[e-mail]>

//  -----Original Message-----
//  From: [e-mail]
//  [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of =
[e-mail]
//  Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 4:28 PM
//  To: [e-mail]
//  Subject: Re: (fractdev) Fractint porting
// =20
// =20
//  On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Christian Strik wrote:
// =20
//  > Is it so the problem you're having is an exception 0x0E (page=20
//  fault) when
//  > starting any djgpp compiler/debugger? If so, I'm having the=20
//  same problem.
//  > Does anybody know a solution? I'm currently using TurboC++=20
//  3.0, but want to
//  > switch to djgpp asap.
// =20
//  Hmm, not exactly sure what's going on.  Did you install everything
//  correctly, including setting the path and the environment variable?
//  ("set DJGPP=3DC:\DJGPP\DJGPP.ENV") I remember at first I forgot=20
//  to do that=20
//  and all sorts of weird problems occured.=20
// =20
//  No, the problems I'm having are with the source code itself not =
being=20
//  compatible.  I think I'm gonna try compiling the xfractint source=20
//  instead (since djgpp is so unix-ish), I might have more luck with =
that.
// =20
//  -------------------------------------------+--------------------
//  -----------
//  Cliff Crawford                             |            Windows=20
//  NT crashed.
//  http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/cjc26/ | I am the Blue=20
//  Screen of Death.
//                                             |     No one hears=20
//  your screams.
// =20
//  --------------------------------------------------------------
//  Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
//  Post Message:   [e-mail]
//  Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
//  Administrator:  [e-mail]
//  Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"
// =20


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 13:05:19 +0100
From: "Christian Strik" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) Fractint porting

>Did you install everything
>correctly, including setting the path and the environment variable?
>("set DJGPP=C:\DJGPP\DJGPP.ENV")

Thanx. Indeed the problem was the djgpp env var. I wrote
    set DJGPP=F:\PRGRMMNG\DJGPP\DGJPP.ENV
instead of ...\DJGPP.ENV.

Christian





- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 16:35:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: (fractdev) Fractint porting

On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Peter Gavin wrote:

> The problems I'm having with compiling it using DJGPP are all the
#define in 'port.h'.  It seem to me that the best way would be to make a
section combining the XFRACT section and the MSDOS section.  Well, you may
just be able to do it by copying the 'remove far' section to the MSDOS
section.  I really haven't had the time to mess with it that much,
unfortunately...  :(

Yes, I took care of the near/far problem (by undefining 'far'), and I've
got everything compiled, I'm just having trouble with the linking stage.
Seems the pre-compiled object files (corresponding to the assembly files)
aren't compatible with djgpp's linker.  I really don't want to try and
assemble all those files with the djgpp assembler, because I suspect that
they were also written in the 16-bit memory model, so I would have to go
through and change it all to 32-bit, which I suspect will be a LOT harder
than changing the C source code.  Anyone know what else I can do?

- -------------------------------------------+-------------------------------
Cliff Crawford                             |            Windows NT crashed.
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/cjc26/ | I am the Blue Screen of Death.
                                           |     No one hears your screams.

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 17:46:40 -0600
From: "Tim Wegner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: (fractdev) Fractint porting

Cliff wrote:

> Seems the pre-compiled object files (corresponding to the assembly files)
> aren't compatible with djgpp's linker.  I really don't want to try and
> assemble all those files with the djgpp assembler, because I suspect that
> they were also written in the 16-bit memory model, so I would have to go
> through and change it all to 32-bit, which I suspect will be a LOT harder
> than changing the C source code.  Anyone know what else I can do?

You definitely can't use the assembler files because they are compiled for the
medium memory model.

Your best bet is to start with Xfractint, but you'll have to deal with any Xwindows-
specific stuff.

One way or another you have to bite a bullet to do a port - it isn't just a
question of tweaking the compiler so the code works. But starting with Xfractint
eliminates all assembler problems.

Tim



- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 09:25:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Kragen)
Subject: RE: (fractdev) Fractint porting

On Thu, 4 Jun 1998 [e-mail] wrote:
> Seems the pre-compiled object files (corresponding to the assembly files)
> aren't compatible with djgpp's linker.  I really don't want to try and
> assemble all those files with the djgpp assembler, because I suspect that
> they were also written in the 16-bit memory model, so I would have to go
> through and change it all to 32-bit, which I suspect will be a LOT harder
> than changing the C source code.

There's also the MASM syntax vs. gas syntax thing.  gas uses a
different assembly-language syntax (% on all the register names,
slightly different names for most opcodes, no BYTE PTR, different
operand order) which is fairly uniform across processor families.  So
it's likely to be even harder than you thought :)

> Anyone know what else I can do?

If you don't feel like translating 16-bit MASM assembly code to 32-bit
gas assembly -- a feat which doesn't sound like it should be
tremendously difficult, but is nevertheless much harder than
recompiling something with a different compiler -- you could use the C
versions of the assembly routines.  I don't know if they exist in the
main source code base, but they certainly exist in xfractint, because I
ran xfractint on an RS/6000 in 1995.

Kragen


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 18:45:25 -0600
From: "Tim Wegner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (fractdev) Visual C/C++ 5

I am sure lots of folks know this stuff, but remember, I'm a beginner <grin!>

I've been playing with Microsoft Visual C/C++ 5.0 and have noticed the following:

1. The compiler has a "console" mode which can be run from DOS or
Windows. The executable program runs as DOS program; under windows a
DOS box is created. In this mode the compiler works like the good ol' MSC 7
that I use for the DOS fractint. Two big differences: long filenames are
supported, and even when running from a DOS Box (inside Win95 of course), a
flat memory model is used, so large amounts of memory can be malloc'ed. Of
course a DOS Fractint compiled in this way wouldn't run under a true DOS. A
few diehard Fractint users like Lee SKinner don't run Windows at all <g!> He'd
have to install WIn95 to use such a program.

2. It isn't hard to link Visual C with assembler. I was able to link in some test
code compiled with MASM 6.1. However it does look like the documentation is
more oriented to inline assembler. For portability, we could keep the
"assembler" files separate, and they could be implemented as either pure
assembler or as one big inline file. All assembler, of course, must use the flat
memory model.

I'm not so sure it would be all that hard to port some of the more critical
assembler to Visual C/C++ 5. This compiler doesn't support Windows 3.1, but
I'm not worried about supporting 16 bit Windows.

Tim




- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 21:06:02 -0400
From: Lee Skinner <[e-mail]>
Subject: (fractdev) Visual C/C++

>>A few diehard Fractint users like Lee SKinner don't run Windows at all
<g!> He'd have to install WIn95 to use such a program.<<

I heard that!<g>

Actually I do use Win95 occasionally when writing CDs or making thumbnail=
s
with CPIC, but still run Fractint under DOS 6.22

Lee

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:38:07 +0200 (MET DST)
From: [e-mail] (F.J. Slijkerman)
Subject: Re: (fractdev) Visual C/C++ 5

Tim,

I think you need to take the same approach as POV-Ray.
Basically, create a 32-bit fractal engine completely written
in C. Then you can build a user interface on top of that,
and rewrite routines in assembler for each platform.
I would recommend to use inline assembly for these routines --
that's ok since you will only use them with VC++, not with
other platforms.

Regards,
Frederik.

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 11:34:05 +0000
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (fractdev) Visual C/C++ 5

> Basically, create a 32-bit fractal engine completely written
> in C. Then you can build a user interface on top of that,
>
    I like that.
- ---
  Linux et Cassoulet  ;===)  http://savage.iut-blagnac.fr/
  Rien a dire ...     ;===)  http://www.mygale.org/08/oulala/

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 16:26:51 -0600
From: Phil McRevis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) Visual C/C++ 5

Hi, after a long hiatus, I am back (sort of) :).
I'm coming in late on this discussion, but I might be
able to lend some insights...please accept my apologies
in advance if I'm repeating what's already been said.

In article <[e-mail]>,
    [e-mail] (F.J. Slijkerman)  writes:
> Basically, create a 32-bit fractal engine completely written
> in C. Then you can build a user interface on top of that,

If you start with the xfractint sources, this will be much
easier than starting with the fractint sources.  The xfractint
code has all the assembly replaced with C routines which compile
on various flavors of unix.  Its a little slow (especially the
formula-based fractals) but it does indeed work.

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 21:49:26 -0600
From: "Tim Wegner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) Visual C/C++ 5

Phil wrote:

> If you start with the xfractint sources, this will be much
> easier than starting with the fractint sources.  The xfractint
> code has all the assembly replaced with C routines which compile
> on various flavors of unix.  Its a little slow (especially the
> formula-based fractals) but it does indeed work.

That's the obvious approach, but we won't be able to retire the DOS version
until there's an equally fast version. As a non-expert, I'm encouraged that flat
model assembler doesn't look so bad. We could probably port the assembler to
djgpp and Linux, also, but that would be more work.

My idea is to eliminate the integer math, which in one fell swoop eliminates a
lot of assembler. The mandel/julia assembler and the parser assembler are the
most important to keep.

Tim


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 23:20:55 -0400
From: "Damien M. Jones" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) Visual C/C++ 5

Tim,

 - As a non-expert, I'm encouraged that flat model assembler doesn't look
 - so bad.

It's actually enormously easier than 16-bit modes... you never have to
touch the segment registers, everything is in just one linear address space
(it isn't really, but that's how the OS makes it look to your app) and it's
just Way Cool.

Damien M. Jones   \\
[e-mail]  \\  http://www.icd.com/tsd/ (temporary sanity designs)
                    \\  http://www.fractalus.com/ (fractals are my hobby)

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 00:04:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Kragen)
Subject: Re: (fractdev) Visual C/C++ 5

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Tim Wegner wrote:
> model assembler doesn't look so bad. We could probably port the assembler to
> djgpp and Linux, also, but that would be more work.

But productive work.

> My idea is to eliminate the integer math, which in one fell swoop eliminates a
> lot of assembler. The mandel/julia assembler and the parser assembler are the
> most important to keep.

I really like integer math a lot, especially if I'm going to run
xfractint on my 386-16.

Kragen


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 00:07:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail] (Kragen)
Subject: Re: (fractdev) Visual C/C++ 5

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Damien M. Jones wrote:
>  - As a non-expert, I'm encouraged that flat model assembler doesn't look
>  - so bad.
>
> It's actually enormously easier than 16-bit modes...

It's much easier to translate 16-bit assembler into 16-bit assembler
(using, for example, copy, cat, or xcopy) than to translate 16-bit
assembler into 32-bit assembler (which requires quite a bit of work).
Certain parts of fractint are currently written in 16-bit assembler.

Kragen


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 00:45:48 -0400
From: "Damien M. Jones" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) Visual C/C++ 5

Kragen,

 - It's much easier to translate 16-bit assembler into 16-bit assembler
 - (using, for example, copy, cat, or xcopy) than to translate 16-bit
 - assembler into 32-bit assembler (which requires quite a bit of work).

I didn't mean to imply otherwise.  On the whole, writing a routine in
32-bit assembly to begin with is a heckuva lot easier than writing the same
technique in 16-bit assembly.  Having done this, I can attest that this is
very much the case, and THAT is the point I was trying to make here.

Damien M. Jones   \\
[e-mail]  \\  http://www.icd.com/tsd/ (temporary sanity designs)
                    \\  http://www.fractalus.com/ (fractals are my hobby)

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:56:37 -0600
From: "Tim Wegner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) Visual C/C++ 5

kragen wrote:

> I really like integer math a lot, especially if I'm going to run
> xfractint on my 386-16.

yes, but with every passing day a 386 is an unusual platform, and the old DOS
fractint can always be used. My view is that these old platforms shouldn't block
Fractint's progress.

On the other hand, if we get help porting the assembler,  we could keep the
integer math.

Tim


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 01:28:14 -0400
From: "Peter Gavin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: (fractdev) Visual C/C++ 5

And besides, who in their right mind would even *try* to run Win95 on a =
386?  <g>   :)

Well, then again, DJGPP has a built in 32 bit extender, correct?

Pete
<[e-mail]>

//  -----Original Message-----
//  From: [e-mail]
//  [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Tim Wegner
//  Sent: Thursday, June 11, 1998 12:57 AM
//  To: [e-mail]
//  Subject: Re: (fractdev) Visual C/C++ 5=20
// =20
// =20
//  kragen wrote:
// =20
//  > I really like integer math a lot, especially if I'm going to run
//  > xfractint on my 386-16.
// =20
//  yes, but with every passing day a 386 is an unusual platform,=20
//  and the old DOS=20
//  fractint can always be used. My view is that these old=20
//  platforms shouldn't block=20
//  Fractint's progress.
// =20
//  On the other hand, if we get help porting the assembler,  we=20
//  could keep the=20
//  integer math.
// =20
//  Tim
// =20
// =20
//  --------------------------------------------------------------
//  Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
//  Post Message:   [e-mail]
//  Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
//  Administrator:  [e-mail]
//  Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"
// =20


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 01:41:27 -0400
From: "Peter Gavin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: (fractdev) Visual C/C++ 5

Wait, can you explain this to me?  The console mode programs made by Vis =
C++ 5 are not DOS programs at all, as far as I know.  I don't think you =
can run a 32-bit console mode program under DOS, even with a 32-bit DOS =
extender.  First off, DOS'll spit out the typical 'This program must be =
run under Windows' BS.  (Try using the FTP console mode program that  =
comes w/ windows under DOS, with a DOS TCP/IP stack, like Wattcp.  It =
won't work.  And the 'This program...' BS is really spit out by the =
Windows program itself, you can hook in any code you want, that's just =
the default behavior.)  Second, I don't think console mode progs can =
access vid hardware the way fractint does, windows doesn't like that, =
'specially w/ protected mode etc.  Third, did you translate the assembly =
to 32-bit, or what? <g> :)

BTW, not to be an anal-retentive dork or anything <g>, but the Vis C++ =
IDE runs that same console  mode compiler you found, it just pipes the =
output through that little box in the bottom.  The wonders of =
Microsoft's programming team! ;)

I have Vis C 4, which is (nearly) identical to 5, other than the MFC =
version included (which is only about .01 version-points better) and =
cosmetic "enhancements".  (Again, MS's team at work! <g>)  I would =
really like to see what you did to get that working!  Could you email =
me?

Thanks!

Pete
<[e-mail]>

//  -----Original Message-----
//  From: [e-mail]
//  [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Tim Wegner
//  Sent: Monday, June 08, 1998 8:45 PM
//  To: [e-mail]
//  Subject: (fractdev) Visual C/C++ 5
// =20
// =20
//  I am sure lots of folks know this stuff, but remember, I'm a=20
//  beginner <grin!>
// =20
//  I've been playing with Microsoft Visual C/C++ 5.0 and have=20
//  noticed the following:
// =20
//  1. The compiler has a "console" mode which can be run from DOS or=20
//  Windows. The executable program runs as DOS program; under windows a =

//  DOS box is created. In this mode the compiler works like the=20
//  good ol' MSC 7=20
//  that I use for the DOS fractint. Two big differences: long=20
//  filenames are=20
//  supported, and even when running from a DOS Box (inside Win95=20
//  of course), a=20
//  flat memory model is used, so large amounts of memory can be=20
//  malloc'ed. Of=20
//  course a DOS Fractint compiled in this way wouldn't run under a=20
//  true DOS. A=20
//  few diehard Fractint users like Lee SKinner don't run Windows=20
//  at all <g!> He'd=20
//  have to install WIn95 to use such a program.
// =20
//  2. It isn't hard to link Visual C with assembler. I was able to=20
//  link in some test=20
//  code compiled with MASM 6.1. However it does look like the=20
//  documentation is=20
//  more oriented to inline assembler. For portability, we could keep =
the=20
//  "assembler" files separate, and they could be implemented as=20
//  either pure=20
//  assembler or as one big inline file. All assembler, of course,=20
//  must use the flat=20
//  memory model.
// =20
//  I'm not so sure it would be all that hard to port some of the=20
//  more critical=20
//  assembler to Visual C/C++ 5. This compiler doesn't support=20
//  Windows 3.1, but=20
//  I'm not worried about supporting 16 bit Windows.
// =20
//  Tim
// =20
// =20
// =20
// =20
//  --------------------------------------------------------------
//  Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
//  Post Message:   [e-mail]
//  Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
//  Administrator:  [e-mail]
//  Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"
// =20


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 11:11:30 +0200 (MET DST)
From: [e-mail] (F.J. Slijkerman)
Subject: Re: (fractdev) Visual C/C++ 5

> On the other hand, if we get help porting the assembler,  we could keep the
> integer math.

The assembler must not be "ported", it should be rewritten. The
difference between 16- and 32-bit assembler is just too much.

Regards,
Frederik.

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 06:23:43 EDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: (fractdev) 3D Fractint

Can anyone help me?

I am working on a physics project and have been using Fractint to make 2D
images for a proof.  What I need now is to be able to make a specific type of
3D image such that, on an x,y,z reference frame, a Mandelbrot set can be
generated on each of the three planes.
     y \   / z
   x ---X---
       /    \

Each plane x,yi; y,zi; and z,xi, would have a two dimensional Mandelbrot
fractal to make a three dimensional image.  The formulas that I use to
generate each MS contains a small variable so that each MS that in generated
is different from any other MS.  The reference frame is then rotated two
degrees and three new MS are generated to get a new image.  With multiple
images, a video can be made showing vibrent 3D rotating fractals.

Need to show only the 'front' of the image.  Where the MSs overlap, only the
portion of MSs that are in view can be seen.

Can anyone help?????


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 20:31:06 +0100
From: Michael Bell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) Visual C/C++ 5

Tim Wegner wrote:
>
> kragen wrote:
>
> > I really like integer math a lot, especially if I'm going to run
> > xfractint on my 386-16.
>
> yes, but with every passing day a 386 is an unusual platform, and the old DOS
> fractint can always be used. My view is that these old platforms shouldn't block
> Fractint's progress.
>
> On the other hand, if we get help porting the assembler,  we could keep the
> integer math.
>
> Tim
>

There are other processor's for which integer math still has large
benefits (as far as I can tell from v19.6).  The K6 processor has a slow
FPU so integer math is better on this processor than the floating point
code (guess what processor I've got :-)).  This generally applies for
all non-Intel chips as far as I can tell, and there are a fair few of
them about.

Michael.

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:43:17 -0400
From: "Damien M. Jones" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) Visual C/C++ 5

Michael,

 - There are other processor's for which integer math still has large
 - benefits (as far as I can tell from v19.6).  The K6 processor has a slow
 - FPU so integer math is better on this processor than the floating point
 - code (guess what processor I've got :-)).  This generally applies for
 - all non-Intel chips as far as I can tell, and there are a fair few of
 - them about.

The AMD K6-2 has a fast FPU.  Apparently even AMD recognizes a weak spot
when they see one. :-)  Cyrix still hasn't figured it out yet, though,
more's the pity.

Damien M. Jones   \\
[e-mail]  \\  http://www.icd.com/tsd/ (temporary sanity designs)
                    \\  http://www.fractalus.com/ (fractals are my hobby)

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:29:59 -0600
From: "Tim Wegner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) Visual C/C++ 5

I wrote:

> > On the other hand, if we get help porting the assembler,  we could keep the
> > integer math.


And Frederik responded:

> The assembler must not be "ported", it should be rewritten. The
> difference between 16- and 32-bit assembler is just too much.

Ahh, the key word was "help", not "porting" <grin!>. If the "helper" wrote 100%
pure assembler from first principles, that's cool.

Seriously, talk of help is a bit premature, but I do hope at the appropriate time
in true Stone Soup spirit we get some talented volunteers.

Tim


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:29:59 -0600
From: "Tim Wegner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) Visual C/C++ 5

Michael wrote:

> There are other processor's for which integer math still has large
> benefits (as far as I can tell from v19.6).  The K6 processor has a slow
> FPU so integer math is better on this processor than the floating point
> code (guess what processor I've got :-)).  This generally applies for
> all non-Intel chips as far as I can tell, and there are a fair few of
> them about.

Ah so, but I have a float-only version I have already made. I know for certain
that I personally will not be writing any flat model  integer math code in
assembler. That doesn't mean it won't happen, it just means that it will depend
on someone who agrees it is important and who has the skills and time
steping forward.

Tim


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractdev, The Fractint Developer's Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractdev"

------------------------------

End of fractdev-digest V1 #9
****************************