r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[!REBOL3 Host Kit]

GrahamC
15-Nov-2010
[941]
Yeah .. old GUI code
ssolie
15-Nov-2010
[942]
Thanks guys. GUI seems to function now after changing the fonts. 
I left a comment in REBOL3 GUI. Now I need to make the buttons actually 
work (more event work to do).
Maxim
15-Nov-2010
[943x2]
I'm really happy that someone is porting the host-kit to an alien 
host.


1) it proves that the design was pretty well thought out to begin 
with

2) might convince people that porting actually is possible, without 
much help from RT.
3) shows that it doesn't require 100 programmers 6 months

4) shows how Carl is cooperative with host-kit issues, even when 
one isn't in the "inner circle"
5) The amiga being such a different beast, its a good way to find 
any problems and make it a better API overall for all platforms.
Henrik
15-Nov-2010
[945]
We could use a Haiku or AROS person as well.
Pekr
15-Nov-2010
[946]
Yes ... but prefereably Android, Windows Mobile 6.x, ARM embedded 
:-)
Rebolek
15-Nov-2010
[947]
Isn't WM6.x effectively dead? MS moved to 7 and I think it's not 
compatible.
Pekr
15-Nov-2010
[948x2]
effectively yes, but tens of millions of devices out there. WinCE 
will probably stay too. Well, this was my preference because I use 
Touch Pro2, but if we decide against it, I might buy different phone, 
although there is now no alternative to such a gem like Touch Pro2 
(full qwerty)
Win7 Mo is a toy OS, as iOS is. If someone is able to port it to 
such phones, it will be good, but dunno how difficult is it going 
to be, or if it is even allowed ...
ssolie
15-Nov-2010
[950]
Henrik: I think we should focus on a more mobile-oriented target 
next. Haiku could be interesting given its unique API. AROS is just 
an Amiga clone so I don't see much value in that one from a host 
kit testing point of view.
Henrik
15-Nov-2010
[951]
ssolie, yes, true. I suppose first goal would be an ARM port.
Maxim
15-Nov-2010
[952]
yeah, the ARM would allow us to use R3 on iphone and possibly Android, 
though the Android API is JAVA so it might be complicated to link 
into the GUi and stuff.
Andreas
15-Nov-2010
[953]
proper linux and osx ports would probably preferrable first :)
ChristianE
15-Nov-2010
[954]
I may be missing something fundamental, but


1) am I supposed to be able to build a A110 r3.exe from the sources 
at github.com/carls/R3A110 on Windows with MinGW and gcc? The gcc 
makefile differs in a lot of places from earlier versions (A109 and 
below) and even seems to generate some .so's instead of .dll's. It 
fails for me with 

gcc  -c -O1 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -Wno-pointer-sign -I ../src/include/ 
 -o obj/host-main.o ../src/os/host-main.c

cc1.exe: error: unrecognized command line option "-Wno-pointer-sign"
before doing anything.


2) given that I somehow manage to build it and include my own changes 
in a clone of that repo, what happens to them if once there's a A111 
repo? I don't see how a A110 repo could be turned into a A111 repo 
- I would have expected to have a R3 repo on github and to have commits 
tagged as constituting a alpha version like A110, A110 etc.
Andreas
15-Nov-2010
[955x2]
re 2) as the docs clearly state in multiple places, this is not the 
final repo
re 1) nope, there's currently no win32 makefile included
ChristianE
15-Nov-2010
[957]
re 2), yes, I've read that, but just assumed sometime in the near 
future there's the same repo in an official place. Good to hear it's 
not like that.
Andreas
15-Nov-2010
[958]
the final repo will probably be rebol/r3-host-kit
ChristianE
15-Nov-2010
[959]
re 1) Good to hear, too, now I can stop trying. ;-)
Andreas
15-Nov-2010
[960]
i have local changes to facilitate building a110 on win32, maybe 
i'll get around to publish them in the next few days
ChristianE
15-Nov-2010
[961]
I have to catch up to what happened in the last weeks, haven't had 
much time to follow ... Thanks, Andreas.
Andreas
15-Nov-2010
[962]
contact me privately if you want them straight away :)
ChristianE
15-Nov-2010
[963]
No need for that, I can wait. I won't have too much time anyway, 
it's just that I don't want to fall behind with my ODBC extension, 
and A109 is lacking some functionality that A110 should already supply.
Cyphre
18-Nov-2010
[964]
I received some critics about promising but not releasing the OpenGL 
test prototype so I decided to release what I have now. You can get 
it from here:

http://cyphre.mysteria.cz/tests/r3gl.zip

for more info please read the readme.txt inside the archive.
Henrik
18-Nov-2010
[965]
GFX benchmark result
0:01:17.748 5.144 FPS

in VirtualBox
Oldes
18-Nov-2010
[966]
R3    = 0:00:05.891 67.9 FPS
R3gl = 0:00:06.688 59.808 FPS
Pekr
18-Nov-2010
[967]
R3 (2.100.107)      - 0:00:07.367 54.296 FPS
R3GL (2.100.110) - 0:00:06.376 62.735 FPS
Oldes
18-Nov-2010
[968]
With updated version from Cyphre:
R3gl - 0:00:03.234 123.685 FPS
Pekr
18-Nov-2010
[969]
Sadly, I have the same result for both versions ...
ChristianE
18-Nov-2010
[970]
r3.exe |  r3gl.exe
0:00:02.853 140.203 FPS | 0:00:03.056 130.890 FPS
0:00:02.964 134.952 FPS | 0:00:02.806 142.551 FPS
0:00:02.823 141.693 FPS | 0:00:02.833 141.193 FPS
0:00:03.043 131.449 FPS | 0:00:02.763 144.770 FPS
0:00:02.964 134.952 FPS | 0:00:02.837 140.994 FPS
0:00:02.948 135.685 FPS | 0:00:02.784 143.678 FPS
Oldes
18-Nov-2010
[971x3]
You can try do download the zip again as I did. There was a wrong 
version.
btw... the r3.exe which is in the zip now is probably also oGL version
(the redownload was for pekr)
Pekr
18-Nov-2010
[974]
I did so ... first zip contained only one file, the second one contained 
2 exes. But the result seems like not being accelerated?
Cyphre
19-Nov-2010
[975x2]
sorry guys, I screwed the archive yesterday. If you want to try it 
again, please use this one: http://cyphre.mysteria.cz/tests/r3gl-proper.zip
this archive contains
r3.exe - that's the official version
r3gl.exe - that's the accelerated one
ssolie
19-Nov-2010
[977]
I blogged a bit about the FreeType implementation in the host kit 
at http://solie.ca/


Besides the bold/italics issue I also noticed the line length is 
not being calculated correctly or similar because the text is rendering 
beyond the window bounds. If we can fix both of these issues I think 
the FreeType implementation should be as good as the win32 implementation.
Cyphre
19-Nov-2010
[978]
ssolie: looks good! The FreeType needs some fine-tuning as I made 
the conversion very quickly and had no time to look into the freetype 
API details to provide 100% accurate results as on Windows. But anyway 
it is great progress on your side. Keep up!
ChristianE
19-Nov-2010
[979]
Ah, way better results, then, Cyphre. 132 fps vs 86 fps on my laptop 
now.
Pekr
21-Nov-2010
[980]
0:00:07.345 54.458 FPS   |   0:00:06.367 62.823 FPS
0:00:07.174 55.756 FPS   |   0:00:06.273 63.765 FPS
0:00:07.038 56.834 FPS   |   0:00:06.295 63.542 FPS
AdrianS
21-Nov-2010
[981]
Christian, what are your hardware specs? Your unaccelereated speed 
is higher than my accelerated one and my video card should be pretty 
good. I'm getting the following stats with a Core 2 Duo @ 1.8 GHz, 
Radeon 5770 (slightly overclocked), Win 7 64 bit:

0:00:08.846 45.218 FPS | 0:00:05.125 78.048 FPS
0:00:08.45   47.337 FPS | 0:00:05.037 79.412 FPS
0:00:08.498 47.069 FPS | 0:00:05.024 79.617 FPS
Cyphre
21-Nov-2010
[982]
Thanks guys..so far it looks good:

-there are no crashes (yet) so it looks the method is highly compatible 
as I expected

-if you have at least decent (doesn't mean new or fast) card the 
difference can be somewhere between 70-100% performance increase 
in the test

-noone(yet) reported case when opengl-speed < sw-speed except Henrik 
running some VM which has most probably bad OpenGL support.


Regrading Pekr's case. He is using Intel on-board gfx which has either 
not good performance/opengl driver or he has forced in the driver 
config VSYNC limiter set to ON so the FPS cannot get higher than 
60Hz LCD frequency.
Henrik
21-Nov-2010
[983]
Yes, VirtualBox OpenGL is very poor. I may try something in Parallels 
later.
ChristianE
21-Nov-2010
[984]
AdrianS, I measured on a Vaio with a NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M graphics 
card, 8core Intel i7CPU Q 720 @ 1.60GHz, Win 7.64 bit, 8 GB RAM.
AdrianS
21-Nov-2010
[985]
Hmm, I wonder if Cyphre's test is really CPU bound - your video chipset 
shouldn't be that much, or at all, better than mine (from what I 
recall). Your CPU kicks my old junker's butt, though. So the test 
might be measuring CPU performance more than accelerated video.
Oldes
21-Nov-2010
[986x2]
Again.. in the archive was wrong exe. Named R3.exe, but with OpenGL 
as well. So that's why Christian had almost same high values.
Although now I see that he has 8core CPU, so maybe he has the speed 
with the official version:/
AdrianS
21-Nov-2010
[988]
Yeah, I think he's got the right archive with the 132/86 numbers. 
Pretty sure that my card should be close to or better than his in 
a test that would not be doing any CPU heavy operations.
ChristianE
22-Nov-2010
[989]
Oldes, I've posted new timings here Fri 20:16 some messages above, 
getting 86 FPS without and 132 FPS with hw accleration using the 
zip archiv r3gl-proper.zip, have you noticed that? So, seems to be 
the correct version since there is a reasonable difference between 
those two version.
Cyphre
22-Nov-2010
[990]
I think Christian's results are correct. He has certainly much powerful 
CPU than Adrian. Also note that the HW accelerated version is still 
using CPU for some parts so the CPU power still can help increase 
speed even in this case. Another thing is that the performance depends 
also on the gfx driver and troughput of the CPU->GPU pipeline. So 
in some configurations the gfx card can be fast enough but it is 
blocked by worse mainboard design etc.