Noisytoot
Posts
2216Following
155Followers
75Also @noisytoot@mice.tel in case chinchillas eat the cables
Noisytoot
noisytoot
@hexaheximal I wouldn't call transpiled C source code. It may (or may not, depending on the implementation) be more readable than machine code or assembly, but it's still not the preferred form for making modifications, which is how I (and the GPL) would define source code. A handwritten (in a hex editor) ELF binary would still be source, but transpiled C is not.
1
0
1
Noisytoot
noisytoot
long grep output
Show content
@hexaheximal @kemona_halftau guix takes the long (full source bootstrap) path for zig, it probably would here too
> grep '(define zig' gnu/packages/zig.scm
(define zig-0.10-libc-abi-tools
(define zig-0.10
(define zig-0.10.0-538-source
(define zig-0.10.0-539-patch
(define zig-0.10.0-542-patch
(define zig-0.10.0-610
(define zig-0.10.0-675
(define zig-0.10.0-722
(define zig-0.10.0-747
(define zig-0.10.0-748
(define zig-0.10.0-851
(define zig-0.10.0-853
(define zig-0.10.0-961
(define zig-0.10.0-962
(define zig-0.10.0-1027
(define zig-0.10.0-1073
(define zig-0.10.0-1497
(define zig-0.10.0-1505-source
(define zig-0.10.0-1506
(define zig-0.10.0-1637-source
(define zig-0.10.0-1638
(define zig-0.10.0-1657
(define zig-0.10.0-1681
(define zig-0.10.0-1712
(define zig-0.10.0-1713
(define zig-0.10.0-1888
(define zig-0.10.0-1891
(define zig-0.10.0-2558
(define zig-0.10.0-2565-source
(define zig-0.10.0-2566
(define zig-0.10.0-2571
(define zig-0.10.0-2796-source
(define zig-0.10.0-2797
(define zig-0.10.0-2824-source
(define zig-0.10.0-2838
(define zig-0.10.0-3660
(define zig-0.10.0-3726
(define zig-0.10.0-3728
(define zig-0.10.0-3807
(define zig-0.10.0-3813
(define zig-0.10.0-3980
(define zig-0.10.0-3985
(define zig-0.11.0-149
(define zig-0.11.0-384
(define zig-0.11.0-494
(define zig-0.11.0-587
(define zig-0.11.0-631
(define zig-0.11.0-638
(define zig-0.11.0-702
(define zig-0.11.0-761
(define zig-0.11.0-1967
(define zig-0.11.0-3245
(define zig-0.11.0-3344
(define zig-0.11.0-3501
(define zig-0.11.0-3503
(define zig-0.11.0-3506
(define zig-0.11.0-3604
(define zig-0.12.0-109
(define zig-0.13.0-286
(define zig-0.13.0-503
(define zig-0.13.0-1323
(define zig-0.13.0-1528
(define zig-0.13.0-1951
(define zig-0.13.0-1952
(define zig-0.13.0-2795
(define zig-0.13.0-2899
(define zig-0.13.0-2924
(define zig-0.13.0-2925
(define zig-0.13.0-3252
(define zig-0.14.0-0
(define zig-0.14.0-687
(define zig-0.14.0-877
(define zig-0.14.0-930
(define zig-0.14.0-934
(define zig-0.14.0-1091
(define zig-0.14.0-1197
(define zig-0.15.0-0
(define zig-0.15.0-1447
(define zig-0.15.0-1459
(define zig-0.15.0-2738
(define zig-0.15.0-2807
(define zig-0.15.0-2821
(define zig-0.15.0-2876
(define zig-0.11-libc-abi-tools
(define zig-0.12-libc-abi-tools
(define zig-0.13-libc-abi-tools
(define zig-0.14-libc-abi-tools
(define zig-0.15-libc-abi-tools
(define zig-0.16-libc-abi-tools
Noisytoot
noisytoot
@hexaheximal @kemona_halftau not good enough for preventing trusting trust attacks or for guix (seemingly the only distro that actually takes bootstrapping seriously) :(
I prefer hare's approach of having a maintained bootstrap compiler written in c and ensuring that the self-hosted compiler remains compilable with it
I prefer hare's approach of having a maintained bootstrap compiler written in c and ensuring that the self-hosted compiler remains compilable with it
1
0
1
Noisytoot
noisytoot
@hexaheximal @kemona_halftau please keep the self-hosted compiler compilable with a non-self-hosted one to avoid having a huge rust-style bootstrap chain where you have to compile every previous version of the compiler in order to bootstrap the compiler entirely from source (or even worse, not publishing the initial non-self-hosted compiler and having no full-source bootstrap chain at all, like dotnet and GNAT)
1
0
1
Noisytoot
noisytoot
- followers-only sucks and people surveyed would prefer the visibility to be coherent even if it’s something simple like sharing the root post’s visibility
the activitypub spec mentions this problem and provides a solution (replies to follower-only posts should be sent to the followers of the original poster, which requires the original poster’s server to forward such replies). I don’t understand why nobody does this.
- people don’t like mentioned-only as a visibility and want “proper” DMs
what’s the difference between “proper” DMs and mentioned-only visibility? the only thing I can think if is that “proper” DMs are actually p2p (like DCC on IRC), but hardly any protocol has this
2
0
1
Noisytoot
noisytoot
0
0
2
Noisytoot
repeated
repeated
Ra (Freyja) (it/its)𒀭𒈹𒍠𒊩 (cringe EU-brained military girl)
freya@highenergymagic.netif anyone out there on the fedi can identify what this is from, please let me know? it's a news program open, but that's all I know about it
6
2
0
Noisytoot
repeated
repeated
Noisytoot
noisytoot
@doskel 3 x16 slots!?!? are those all electrically x16 or just physically? I didn't realize modern ("consumer"/non-server) cpus/chipsets had that many pcie lanes. the only motherboard I have with more than one x16 slot is my power system L922 (which has 3 x16 slots and 6 x8 slots (4 of which are physically x16))
1
0
0
Noisytoot
noisytoot
2
0
1
what the IRA did wrong
0
0
0