ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/fractdev/archive/v01.n018

Internet Message Format | 1999-03-02 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (fractdev-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: fractdev-digest V1 #18
Reply-To: fractdev-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


fractdev-digest        Wednesday, March 3 1999        Volume 01 : Number 018




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

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:10:00 -0700
From: Phil McRevis <[e-mail]>
Subject: (fractdev) 'open source'

Hmm... I just read over the definition of "open source" on
<http://www.opensource.org> and I don't see how fractint conflicts
with what they are requiring in order to call something 'open source'.

What specifically are you saying is the conflict?  At any rate, I will
continue to use the term 'open source' in email however I want :-).

All opensource.org is saying with their trademark is that you can't
"market" software under that rubric without complying with their
terms.
- --
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/>    Legalize Adulthood!
    ``Ain't it funny that they all fire the pistol,
      at the wrong end of the race?''--PDBT
          <http://www.eden.com/~thewho>

- --------------------------------------------------------------
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, 22 Feb 1999 15:24:36 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kragen Sitaker)
Subject: Re: (fractdev) 'open source'

On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Phil McRevis wrote:
> Hmm... I just read over the definition of "open source" on
> <http://www.opensource.org> and I don't see how fractint conflicts
> with what they are requiring in order to call something 'open source'.

Section 1, Free Redistribution, begins:
    The license may not restrict any party from selling or giving
    away the software as a component of an aggregate software
    distribution containing programs from several different
    sources.

Fractint's license prohibits most people from selling it, unless I
misremember it.

> What specifically are you saying is the conflict?  At any rate, I will
> continue to use the term 'open source' in email however I want :-).

Well, I don't suppose I can stop you.

> All opensource.org is saying with their trademark is that you can't
> "market" software under that rubric without complying with their
> terms.

That's an interesting theory about trademark law, and you might be
right.  The recent Dilution Act suggests otherwise, though, at least in
the US.

- --
<[e-mail]>       Kragen Sitaker     <http://www.pobox.com/~kragen/>
Computers are the tools of the devil. It is as simple as that. There is no
monotheism strong enough that it cannot be shaken by Unix or any Microsoft
product. The devil is real. He lives inside C programs. -- [e-mail]


- --------------------------------------------------------------
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, 22 Feb 1999 13:57:20 -0700
From: Phil McRevis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) 'open source'

In article <[e-mail]>,
    [e-mail] (Kragen Sitaker)  writes:
> Fractint's license prohibits most people from selling it, unless I
> misremember it.

You know, I looked through the source and I couldn't find the license
specifically... Tim?  Hello, Tim?  Where are you? :-)

> > What specifically are you saying is the conflict?  At any rate, I will
> > continue to use the term 'open source' in email however I want :-).
>
> Well, I don't suppose I can stop you.

Nope, you can't.  And neither can opensource.org, because although
they have trademarked the term, that doesn't give them the right to
control how people use the term in conversation or in correspondence.

> > All opensource.org is saying with their trademark is that you can't
> > "market" software under that rubric without complying with their
> > terms.
>
> That's an interesting theory about trademark law, and you might be
> right.  The recent Dilution Act suggests otherwise, though, at least in
> the US.

If they have the term trademarked, that gives them the right to
control how that term is used in the marketing and distribution of
software, but that's where their rights end.  For instance, "kleenex"
is a trademark, but it is also used in general conversation and indeed
has become synonymous with "facial tissue".  Whoever owns the
trademark of "kleenex" can prevent someone else from marketing a
product using that trademark, but they can't prevent anyone from
saying "would you hand me a kleenex, please?" even when the product
they are pointing to wasn't marketed under the name "kleenex".

Admittedly, I haven't studied the details of trademark law since the
early 80s, but I think I'm on the mark here.  Do you disagree?
- --
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/>    Legalize Adulthood!
    ``Ain't it funny that they all fire the pistol,
      at the wrong end of the race?''--PDBT
[e-mail]    <http://www.eden.com/~thewho>

- --------------------------------------------------------------
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, 22 Feb 1999 16:11:45 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kragen Sitaker)
Subject: Re: (fractdev) 'open source'

On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Phil McRevis wrote:
> In article <[e-mail]>,
>     [e-mail] (Kragen Sitaker)  writes:
> You know, I looked through the source and I couldn't find the license
> specifically... Tim?  Hello, Tim?  Where are you? :-)

It's not stated in legalese.  But there are definitely copying
conditions in there.

> > Well, I don't suppose I can stop you.
>
> Nope, you can't.  And neither can opensource.org, because although
> they have trademarked the term, that doesn't give them the right to
> control how people use the term in conversation or in correspondence.

Well, actually . . .

> > That's an interesting theory about trademark law, and you might be
> > right.  The recent Dilution Act suggests otherwise, though, at least in
> > the US.
>
> If they have the term trademarked, that gives them the right to
> control how that term is used in the marketing and distribution of
> software, but that's where their rights end.  For instance, "kleenex"
> is a trademark, but it is also used in general conversation and indeed
> has become synonymous with "facial tissue".  Whoever owns the
> trademark of "kleenex"

Kimberly-Clark.

> can prevent someone else from marketing a
> product using that trademark, but they can't prevent anyone from
> saying "would you hand me a kleenex, please?" even when the product
> they are pointing to wasn't marketed under the name "kleenex".
>
> Admittedly, I haven't studied the details of trademark law since the
> early 80s, but I think I'm on the mark here.  Do you disagree?

The Dilution Act was just passed in the last couple of years; it does
indeed give trademark owners broad powers to shut people up.  It is
somewhat disturbing, and I hope that it is struck down in court.

What you say is correct with regard to the Lanham Act.  I think.  I am
also not a lawyer.

- --
<[e-mail]>       Kragen Sitaker     <http://www.pobox.com/~kragen/>
Computers are the tools of the devil. It is as simple as that. There is no
monotheism strong enough that it cannot be shaken by Unix or any Microsoft
product. The devil is real. He lives inside C programs. -- [e-mail]


- --------------------------------------------------------------
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, 22 Feb 1999 14:16:40 -0700
From: Phil McRevis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) 'open source'

In article <[e-mail]>,
    [e-mail] (Kragen Sitaker)  writes:
> The Dilution Act was just passed in the last couple of years; it does
> indeed give trademark owners broad powers to shut people up.  It is
> somewhat disturbing, and I hope that it is struck down in court.

Bummer.  Sounds like another welfare program for lawyers.

I will still say 'kleenex' and 'open source' though.  Maybe they will
sue me, but I doubt it :-).
- --
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/>    Legalize Adulthood!
    ``Ain't it funny that they all fire the pistol,
      at the wrong end of the race?''--PDBT
[e-mail]    <http://www.eden.com/~thewho>

- --------------------------------------------------------------
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, 22 Feb 1999 16:40:31 -0700
From: Phil McRevis <[e-mail]>
Subject: (fractdev) flat-memory model

OK, I've made my first pass through the code with the following
changes:

1. removed all near/far/huge qualifiers on pointers
2. removed the far_str* references in favor of str* (strcpy, strcmp, etc.)
3. removed the far_mem* references in favor of mem* (memcpy, memcmp, etc.)

In general.asm, there are a bunch of routines for manipulating far
memory.  I could remove these, but I'm focusing on the C code right
now and not the assembly.

Ther are also some routines for manipulating extended memory and
expanded memory.  These need to be switched to flat-memory model
routines as well, but I'm not so sure how they are used and would like
a little guidance from the developers out there that are familiar with
this.

Note that I haven't attempted to compile any code yet, just making
systematic modifications to the source code.  I'm using CVS, so I can
backup after any disastrous changes :-) as well as easily generate
context diffs.
- --
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/>    Legalize Adulthood!
    ``Ain't it funny that they all fire the pistol,
      at the wrong end of the race?''--PDBT
          <http://www.eden.com/~thewho>

- --------------------------------------------------------------
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, 23 Feb 1999 11:10:15 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kragen Sitaker)
Subject: Re: (fractdev) 'open source' (fwd)

- --
<[e-mail]>       Kragen Sitaker     <http://www.pobox.com/~kragen/>
Computers are the tools of the devil. It is as simple as that. There is no
monotheism strong enough that it cannot be shaken by Unix or any Microsoft
product. The devil is real. He lives inside C programs. -- [e-mail]

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 23 Feb 1999 16:05:22 -0000
From: Russell Nelson <[e-mail]>
To: Kragen Sitaker <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: (fractdev) 'open source'

Kragen Sitaker writes:
 > > All opensource.org is saying with their trademark is that you can't
 > > "market" software under that rubric without complying with their
 > > terms.
 >
 > That's an interesting theory about trademark law, and you might be
 > right.  The recent Dilution Act suggests otherwise, though, at least in
 > the US.

Hi, Kragen.  ESR has delegated mark misuse issues to me.  There's not
much I can do about heresay.  If they have a web page, or made usenet
postings claiming Open Source, I can whack them.  But on a private
mailing list, there's not much I can do.

- --
- -russ nelson <[e-mail]>  http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok |   There is good evidence
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | [phone] voice |   that freedom is the
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | [phone] FAX   |   cause of world peace.


- --------------------------------------------------------------
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, 23 Feb 1999 10:27:41 -0700
From: Phil McRevis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) 'open source' (fwd)

Gee, thanks for reporting me to the trademark police! Sheesh.
- --
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/>    Legalize Adulthood!
    ``Ain't it funny that they all fire the pistol,
      at the wrong end of the race?''--PDBT
[e-mail]    <http://www.eden.com/~thewho>

- --------------------------------------------------------------
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, 23 Feb 1999 13:38:05 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Kragen Sitaker)
Subject: Re: (fractdev) 'open source' (fwd)

You said:
> Gee, thanks for reporting me to the trademark police! Sheesh.

I didn't mean it as an unfriendly gesture.  I don't think of them as
police.

- --
<[e-mail]>       Kragen Sitaker     <http://www.pobox.com/~kragen/>
Computers are the tools of the devil. It is as simple as that. There is no
monotheism strong enough that it cannot be shaken by Unix or any Microsoft
product. The devil is real. He lives inside C programs. -- [e-mail]


- --------------------------------------------------------------
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, 23 Feb 1999 20:46:59 -0500
From: Jonathan Osuch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) flat-memory model

>> In general.asm, there are a bunch of routines for manipulating far
memory.  I could remove these, but I'm focusing on the C code right
now and not the assembly. <<

The Xfractint source code contains a file called general.c, which address=
es
this issue.

>> There are also some routines for manipulating extended memory and
expanded memory.  These need to be switched to flat-memory model
routines as well, but I'm not so sure how they are used and would like
a little guidance from the developers out there that are familiar with
this. <<

The extended and expanded memory routines aren't required.  The Xfractint=

code includes two defines for them which effectively turns any calls for
extended and expanded into ordinary memory calls.  This statement will ma=
ke
(more) sense if you are working with the developer's version where the
memory routines have been consolidated.  In the version 19.6 source, the
expanded and extended routines are #ifdef'd out for Xfract.

Jonathan

- --------------------------------------------------------------
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, 23 Feb 1999 19:55:41 -0700
From: Phil McRevis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) flat-memory model

In article <[e-mail]>,
    Jonathan Osuch <[e-mail]>  writes:
> The Xfractint source code contains a file called general.c, which address=
> es
> this issue.

Well not really.  That general.c file addresses the issue of video I/O
for *unix*, which doesn't really help for a flat-memory model
conversion for the DOS version of fractint.  Maybe I will just have to
convert the assembly to 32-bit after I get all this memory model stuff
removed.  I'm upgrading to BCB4 anyway and it includes TASM and
Borland's C++ compiler v5.02 in the box.
- --
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/>    Legalize Adulthood!
    ``Ain't it funny that they all fire the pistol,
      at the wrong end of the race?''--PDBT
[e-mail]    <http://www.eden.com/~thewho>

- --------------------------------------------------------------
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, 24 Feb 1999 21:05:00 -0600
From: "Tim Wegner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (fractdev) 32 bit port

Rich wrote:

> Tim?  Hello, Tim?  Where are you? :-)

I'm back, wading through my mail ... I was in Minnesota Saturday
through Tuesday night.

We should get you caught up with the later developer version
before you get too far, probably too late! I shall endeavor to upload
some sort of synch soon.

I have Borland C++ Builder 3, and am not planning to upgrade. I
think a djgpp version would give us the most bang for the effort. In
fact what I'd love for starters would be a djgpp version with the
identical interface as Fractint.

The initial problem we need to solve is how to do menus and
graphics. Xfractint has already solved far pointers etc. with defines.

Then we could consider making that the "official" DOS version, and
could massively rearchitect the fractint internals without diverging
from our official version.

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: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 20:18:48 -0700
From: Phil McRevis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) 32 bit port

In article <[e-mail]>,
    "Tim Wegner" <[e-mail]>  writes:
> We should get you caught up with the later developer version
> before you get too far, probably too late! I shall endeavor to upload
> some sort of synch soon.

Yes, that would be good.  Just send me a URL where I can obtain it.  I
am using CVS/RCS so I can generate diffs and apply them to the code
and/or just use emacs again to remove all the near/far/huge
qualifiers.

> I have Borland C++ Builder 3, and am not planning to upgrade.

(There is a coupon in BCB3 for the Borland C++ 5.02 compiler; just
that its easier with BCB4 since it comes in the box and you don't have
to send away for it.  The coupon lets you obtain it for free, and I've
just been lazy.  BCB3 also has TASM support; I didn't mean to imply
that BCB4 would be required in order to obtain either of those
features.)

> I
> think a djgpp version would give us the most bang for the effort. In
> fact what I'd love for starters would be a djgpp version with the
> identical interface as Fractint.

That's what I was thinking to.

> The initial problem we need to solve is how to do menus and
> graphics. Xfractint has already solved far pointers etc. with defines.

See my earlier message about maintenance as to why I don't think
#defining the qualifiers away is a good idea.  Of course that's just
my personal taste, but since I'm doing the work, you'll all have to
live with that :-).  (I don't expect any objections; moving to 32-bit
is more than just removing the qualifiers and if you really want
16bit, then you just compile the 19.x source.)

Here are my thoughts for the evolution:

    o modify code to 32-bit, flat-memory model

    o make a pass through the code to shuffle the data declarations
    that were done in weird ways in order to cope with limited memory
    space in 16bit mode.  (strings declared static rather than just as
    literals and so-on.)  This should make understanding the code
    easier for new developers because they can focus on the
    _algorithm_ rather than memory model straightjackets.

    o GUI/graphics abstraction, but keeping the same DOS UI.  This is
    largerly there, but the big change is just moving to an
    event-based architecture rather than a polling architecture.

After that, adding new "front ends" (graphics + GUI) to support other
platforms should be MUCH easier.  Then we can get on with ideas for
Win32/X/MacOS/DirectX methods of doing the graphics & GUI.
- --
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/>    Legalize Adulthood!
    ``Ain't it funny that they all fire the pistol,
      at the wrong end of the race?''--PDBT
[e-mail]    <http://www.eden.com/~thewho>

- --------------------------------------------------------------
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, 25 Feb 1999 15:35:29 -0300 (EST)
From: Humberto Rossetti Baptista <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) 32 bit port

On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Phil McRevis wrote:

> > I
> > think a djgpp version would give us the most bang for the effort. In
> > fact what I'd love for starters would be a djgpp version with the
> > identical interface as Fractint.
>
> That's what I was thinking to.

    Hi Everyone,

    I just got back from vacations and I'm getting up to date w/ the
fractdev list.

    By what is being dicussed I thik we should really take advantage of the
unixisms of djgpp or even a dos version of the new egcs (if both can compile the
new version of frcatint it would be great). The commercial DOS alternatives to
32 bit aren't so nice because they have many differences in comparasion to the
traditional gcc.

    By what we have discussed in the past there is much of the 32 bit
porting work done in the XFractint wich only needs the adition of a graphical
interface to a 32bit DOS app. My opinion is the same of Phil: use the Allegro
library (the way it was used in XaoS really made me optimist, it compiles
in DOS (djgpp+allegro) and unix (gcc+allegro).

    So Just to add a practical 2cents here:

    What if we made the following (this means you Phil since you started it
first):

    - Check the solution djgpp+allegro and how it was used (lin in KaoS)

    - Modify only the parts needed to get a running version of fractint in
djgpp WITH all the #defines and such in place since they already comment out
what is nedded and include the C code where nedded.

    - After it compiles and runs ok, try the same unde Linux (for instance)
with allegro pointing to, say, SVGALib. (I can test this)

    - With this running we (now not only Phil) can clean up the code to
release an official (developers?) version of the 32Bit fractint. (clean up means
only taking out the #defines and comments that are useless).

    - Now every interested developper can check it's algorithm and i guess
Tim may give a general direction in adjusting the datastructures and such to use
better the flat memory model.

    Ideas? Comments?

    []'s

    Humberto R. Baptista
    [e-mail]

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insite - Solucoes Internet                         http://www.insite.com.br


- --------------------------------------------------------------
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, 25 Feb 99 10:47:17 -0800
From: Tim Gilman <[e-mail]>
Subject: (fractdev) Re: 32 bit port - graphics API

>* ([e-mail]) unpacked this on 2/24/99 7:18 PM:
>After that, adding new "front ends" (graphics + GUI) to support other
>platforms should be MUCH easier.  Then we can get on with ideas for
>Win32/X/MacOS/DirectX methods of doing the graphics & GUI.

>> "Tim Wegner" <[e-mail]>  writes:
>> The initial problem we need to solve is how to do menus and
>> graphics. Xfractint has already solved far pointers etc. with defines.

I've run across a strange bug that might open up some discussion on
graphics.  The MacOS's graphics engine (QuickDraw) allows a programmer to
syncronize a pixel map of values 0-255 with the index (of range 0-255) of
a color palette, such that palette-animation/color-cycling can occur on
devices that normally don't have such indices (such as monitors set to
32-bit depth).  Devices like this become a problem for users who try to
color-cycle a fractal on a monitor set to 32-bit depth while other
color-hungry applications (like photoshop) are open.

So, to allow this sort of color-cycling, I exploited a hardly documented
feature of QuickDraw.  Doing this allowed color-cycling *while* changing
monitor bit-depths, and at the same time preserved the way each color
looked on the monitor.  Through beta-feedback, I've discovered that
certain Mac OS clones contain 3rd party video cards that don't support
QuickDraw's hardly documented feature of index-to-palette
synchronization, and the way they don't support it is through crashing
the machine!

This problem only happens on probably 5% of Mac OS running machines, but
it's large enough to demonstrate Fractint's need for a graphic's API that
is supported across a variety of software platforms (axing
MacOS/QuickDraw and Win32/DirectX), and has enough hardware support to
actually keep Fractint fast *and* color-cycling.  I'm not sure if there
is such an API, but I'm doing some more research on OpenGL to figure out
if it's capable of supporting indexed-on-a-direct-device color-animation.

Does anyone have any opinions on these sorts of issues?

=- Tim Gilman


  "There is no truth, in which passing through awareness, does not lie.
   Yet we chase after it all the same."           - J. Lacan


- --------------------------------------------------------------
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, 1 Mar 1999 21:26:42 -0300 (EST)
From: Humberto Rossetti Baptista <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) Re: 32 bit port - graphics API

On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Tim Gilman wrote:

> Does anyone have any opinions on these sorts of issues?

    Yes: my goes in the direction you're going while supporting a more
hands-on approach (TimW style:-)):

    The abtractions o the grahics system is important but not essential
right now and as you've pointed needs a LOT more research.

    Our main problem (in my opinion, of course) is to move to a flat memory
model to allow people to experiment more and throw more peebles in the soup! I
hate to cook in a small pan :-)))

    `[]'s

    Humberto R. Baptista
    [e-mail]

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insite - Solucoes Internet                         http://www.insite.com.br


- --------------------------------------------------------------
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, 03 Mar 1999 12:26:02 -0700
From: Phil McRevis <[e-mail]>
Subject: (fractdev) 16->32 bit assembler

OK, what do I need to know in order to convert the assembler to
32-bit?

I've coded 6809 and 680x0 assembler before, but not x86 assembler,
although I'm familiar with the architecture and instruction set.

It looks like the fastest path to the 32-bit flat memory-model is to
port everything in the existing fractint code base, including the
assembler.

Tim, weren't you going to send me the URL for the newer development
version of the code (including evolver, etc.) so I can merge my
changes?
- --
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/>    Legalize Adulthood!
    ``Ain't it funny that they all fire the pistol,
      at the wrong end of the race?''--PDBT
          <http://www.eden.com/~thewho>

- --------------------------------------------------------------
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, 03 Mar 1999 13:38:08 -0600
From: "Damien M. Jones" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) 16->32 bit assembler

Phil,

 - OK, what do I need to know in order to convert the assembler to
 - 32-bit?

<guffaw>

:-)

 - I've coded 6809 and 680x0 assembler before, but not x86 assembler,
 - although I'm familiar with the architecture and instruction set.

Hmmm. First step, of course: forget most of your optimizing tricks from
680x0 code. :) Then, if you want to write fast code, check Agner Fog's guide:

    http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/9498/p5opt.html

Now, your problem is that a lot of the assembly programming guides for the
PC all seem to start out with real-mode DOS programming, which is a pain in
the neck and far more complicated. 32-bit programming is simple. You don't
ever mess with segment registers--you just treat memory as a flat address
space, like you do on the 680x0. And although you'll find specialized
instructions for doing specific things with specific registers, most of the
time these are hold-overs from earlier generations; the general-purpose
instructions that work on almost all registers are faster, and they give
you more flexibility.

Don't forget that x86 chips store the least significant byte in the lowest
address; this is backwards from 680x0 chips. If you have a variable you
want to access as both a longword and a word, on the 680x0 you'd do it like
this:

        move.w var1+2,d0        ; access the low word
        move.l var1,d1        ; access the entire longword
        ...
var1    dc.l $12345678

On an x86, you'd do it like this:

        mov ax,WORD PTR var1    ; access the low word
        mov ebx,var1            ; access the entire doubleword
        ...
var1    dd 012345678h

Note that for x86 instructions, the destination is on the left, not on the
right. This caused me no end of trouble when I moved from 680x0 to x86. On
the whole, I think I prefer the 680x0 syntax. I certainly prefer having
more registers to work with. :-) Having only eight general-purpose
registers when you're used to sixteen is a *tight* squeeze.

Damien M. Jones   \\
[e-mail]  \\  Fractalus Galleries & Info:
                    \\  http://www.fractalus.com/

Please do not post my e-mail address on a web site or
in a newsgroup.  Thank you.

- --------------------------------------------------------------
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, 03 Mar 1999 12:59:42 -0700
From: Phil McRevis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) 16->32 bit assembler

In article <[e-mail]>,
    "Damien M. Jones" <[e-mail]>  writes:
> Phil,

By the way, in case anyone didn't know (or care :-).  "Phil McRevis"
is a gag name.  I put it on my account because some people insist on
knowing your "real name" before they will take you seriously and/or
answer your questions.  I used to use various pithy phrases like
"Legalize Adulthood!" in my real name field and people would have
these reactions about knowing who I am "really".  So I put the Phil
McRevis there to satisfy these boneheads (say it out loud to get the
gag).

I did have a bad experience once with some dork who decided that he
was going to use my real name to look up my phone number and leave
threatening messages on my answering machine.  (I still have the tape
around somewhere in case he decides to run for office; yes, he was a
dork from a politics mailing list.)  Nowadays that is less likely to
happen since I've gotten my phone number unlisted to avoid
telemarketers during dinner, but still, you never know.

My real name is Rich.  If anyone doesn't recognize who I am from the
style of my messages and is curious, email me in private and I may
reveal more.  Its a shame that one must resort to security through
obscurity in order to protect oneself from the various boneheads out
there these days, but its what I've found works best.

Now back to our regular program...

>  - OK, what do I need to know in order to convert the assembler to
>  - 32-bit?
>
> <guffaw>

Well we just didn't seem to be reaching any firm conclusion about what
to do about the graphics.  I'm not even going to attempt making the
converted assembly fast or efficient, merely functional.

>     http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/9498/p5opt.html

I've read this before, but as I say, I'm not looking for the minimum
cycle M-set computation, just something that *works* in 32-bit mode.

> Now, your problem is that a lot of the assembly programming guides for the
> PC all seem to start out with real-mode DOS programming, which is a pain in
> the neck and far more complicated.

Yes, the book I have on x86 assembly code is like that.  Fortunately I
got it so cheap that I didn't feel ripped off :-).  (It was like $5 or
something like that.)

> Note that for x86 instructions, the destination is on the left, not on the
> right. This caused me no end of trouble when I moved from 680x0 to x86.

Its actually been so long since I genuinely coded assembly (last time
was in 1986!) that I don't expect this to be a problem for me :-).

Mostly I'm just concerned about converting the 16bit assembler in such
a way as to preserve its correctness.  Some other assembly guru can
adjust for speed if necessary.
- --
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/>    Legalize Adulthood!
    ``Ain't it funny that they all fire the pistol,
      at the wrong end of the race?''--PDBT
[e-mail]    <http://www.eden.com/~thewho>

- --------------------------------------------------------------
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, 03 Mar 1999 13:08:38 -0700
From: Phil McRevis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) 16->32 bit assembler

Can someone recommend a good book on 32-bit assembler?  I'd like to
have a nice reference + tutorial to work with while I'm doing this.
As I said, I have an x86 assembler book, but it is focused on 16bit
DOS real-mode code, not 32bit protected mode stuff.  Yes, I can print
out the x86 PDF files from intel, but that's hardly the best way to
learn assembler -- staring at a long compendium of detailed tehcnical
info on each and every instruction without a tutorial-like overview.
- --
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/>    Legalize Adulthood!
    ``Ain't it funny that they all fire the pistol,
      at the wrong end of the race?''--PDBT
[e-mail]    <http://www.eden.com/~thewho>

- --------------------------------------------------------------
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 Mar 1999 17:27:22 -0300 (EST)
From: Humberto Rossetti Baptista <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) 16->32 bit assembler

    Hi Phil (Rich),

On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Phil McRevis wrote:

> It looks like the fastest path to the 32-bit flat memory-model is to
> port everything in the existing fractint code base, including the
> assembler.

    I think that won't be necessary as the work on xfractint has ported back
all assembly to C, so as a simple path we can use this to obtain a fractint
version that is compiled to 32 bit.

    What we lack right now is the porting of the graphic/text interface to
32 bit (in C for portability issues ??) To that we have seen the mantion of
Allegro as a library that can handle both Linux and DOS 32 bit (does it work in
other Unixes, and/or X?).

> Tim, weren't you going to send me the URL for the newer development
> version of the code (including evolver, etc.) so I can merge my
> changes?

    Hi Tim, How are things doing? I see from the ftp that you haven't merged
thelast stuff yet in the files, any ideas?

    []'s

    Humberto R. Baptista
    [e-mail]

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insite - Solucoes Internet                         http://www.insite.com.br


- --------------------------------------------------------------
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, 03 Mar 1999 13:29:45 -0700
From: Phil McRevis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractdev) 16->32 bit assembler

In article <[e-mail]>,
    Humberto Rossetti Baptista <[e-mail]>  writes:
>I think that won't be necessary as the work on xfractint has ported back
> all assembly to C, so as a simple path we can use this to obtain a fractint
> version that is compiled to 32 bit.

No, this won't work (completely) for the DOS code, because xfractint
doesn't know anything about VGA cards and so-on.  It uses X for
graphics and input.  Yes, some things can be stolen from the xfractint
source code but for others it uses an X-centric replacement, not a
straight "do what the DOS code does, but do it in C" replacement.
- --
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/>    Legalize Adulthood!
    ``Ain't it funny that they all fire the pistol,
      at the wrong end of the race?''--PDBT
[e-mail]    <http://www.eden.com/~thewho>

- --------------------------------------------------------------
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 #18
*****************************