01:02.47 |
brlcad |
what exactly was the breakage? |
01:03.07 |
``Erik |
width differences on 64b fbsd |
01:03.28 |
``Erik |
mostly just -Wall -W -Werror -ansi -pedantic
hunting *shrug* |
01:03.43 |
``Erik |
admin -o 'em if you want *shrug* |
01:04.07 |
brlcad |
cvs admin is the devil |
01:04.18 |
``Erik |
(everyone else who read that cmd, forget it
now. seriously. flush it out of your brain. it's a nuclear
command.) |
01:04.38 |
brlcad |
no kidding |
01:05.06 |
brlcad |
if I have to restore a cvs backup, i'd be
removing commit access at the same time |
01:05.14 |
brlcad |
admin is baaad |
01:05.25 |
brlcad |
anyways, the actual error though? |
01:05.53 |
brlcad |
was it on the cast on the malloc() link in
bu_malloc()? |
01:05.54 |
``Erik |
meh, I don't remember off the top of my head,
I actually modified my checkout in december... |
01:06.09 |
brlcad |
or on a caller to bu_malloc() |
01:06.22 |
``Erik |
the bu_malloc<->malloc
relationship |
01:06.35 |
brlcad |
heh, well that's true with either |
01:08.00 |
``Erik |
<-- got a hair up his arse to do the anal
flags thing, got that far and got busy with other things
*shrug* |
01:18.03 |
brlcad |
hmm, I'll have to let it simmer a bit .. the
biggest impact is adding another dep to the bu interface (even
though there are a few others that sprinkle in size_t
too) |
01:18.49 |
brlcad |
given the move to allow anything that is
strict ansi 89 complaint, I think most of the old reasons
vanish |
01:19.23 |
brlcad |
not sure if size_t is 89, but it's at least 99
so it just adds a header dep on stddefs.h |
01:31.20 |
Maloeran |
size_t is C89 |
01:38.51 |
``Erik |
when we merge rayforce in, it'll induce c99 as
a requirement (for that part) |
01:39.33 |
Maloeran |
Ah yes, it's all pretty much C99 |
01:41.39 |
``Erik |
what, c89 vs c99 vs, uh, vax
k&r? |
01:41.58 |
``Erik |
emacs vs vim vs alltheothercrap? |
01:42.06 |
Maloeran |
Oh, no :). Old good religious debates, you
know... Reason versus absurd theories |
01:42.12 |
``Erik |
hum |
01:42.21 |
``Erik |
reason vs absurity... so... vim vs
emacs... |
01:42.22 |
``Erik |
O:-) |
02:01.49 |
brlcad |
out of curiosity, what c99isms? |
02:03.18 |
brlcad |
i recall seeing a lot of GNUisms, but not so
much c99isms |
02:04.55 |
brlcad |
nothing wrong with making c99 allowable too,
it was on the plate for next year -- just strict c89 was the "next
step" and a lot of cleanup in itself |
02:14.31 |
Maloeran |
C99 data types, restrict keyword,
variable-length arrays... I think the rest is gnu99 |
02:15.43 |
``Erik |
scoped functions? (function definitions inside
of functions) |
02:16.07 |
Maloeran |
No nested functions, that was in the old
code |
02:16.07 |
``Erik |
or didja not go that route? |
02:16.13 |
``Erik |
aight |
02:18.18 |
brlcad |
why do I get the feeling the code has never
been compiled with anything but gcc? :) |
02:19.17 |
Maloeran |
Ahaha. I'm not sure, can you answer that Erik?
:) |
02:20.25 |
brlcad |
heh |
02:31.41 |
Maloeran |
It should be reasonably portable ; 32, 64 or X
bits, IEEE or non-IEEE floats, GNU'isms with alternative paths...
It still needs testing in other environments |
02:36.04 |
``Erik |
I'm sure mipspro or sunpro would
puke |
02:36.33 |
Maloeran |
They are C99, right? |
02:36.41 |
``Erik |
don't think so... |
02:36.52 |
``Erik |
d'no if tendra is |
02:37.27 |
brlcad |
they both support c99 .. it's more what exact
headers are allowed and what mode you tell the compile in by
default |
02:37.27 |
``Erik |
huh, cool |
02:37.47 |
brlcad |
default behavior (akin to gcc's gnu99 mixed
default) is a hybrid that might turn off some c99 stuff |
02:38.13 |
brlcad |
my faith in sunpro's capacity to compile c99
strict is weak |
02:38.48 |
brlcad |
last time I was working on sunpro, if you told
the compiler to go strict, it would puke on its own system headers
being non-compliant and abort |
02:38.57 |
``Erik |
hehehe, sweet |
02:41.44 |
brlcad |
yeah, i was amused |
08:21.19 |
*** join/#brlcad clock_
(n=clock@zux221-122-143.adsl.green.ch) |
08:36.20 |
*** join/#brlcad clock_
(n=clock@zux221-122-143.adsl.green.ch) |
11:48.15 |
*** join/#brlcad clock_
(n=clock@zux221-122-143.adsl.green.ch) |
13:54.36 |
*** join/#brlcad rossberg
(n=rossberg@bz.bzflag.bz) |
14:02.27 |
rossberg |
question from yesterday: what's the problem
with vers.c on Windows? |
14:37.35 |
clock_ |
And, what's the assumed for the pix files when
rendering textures? |
14:37.45 |
clock_ |
assumed -> assumed gamma |
15:00.07 |
*** join/#brlcad archivist
(n=archivis@host217-35-76-52.in-addr.btopenworld.com) |
15:09.23 |
brlcad |
dout! |
15:10.40 |
brlcad |
clock_: i don't know if there's another
language barrier coming into play, but i answered yesterday that it
entirely depends on the shader(s) being used |
15:11.09 |
brlcad |
there's no "gamma value" that will answer that
question that covers all the various shaders |
15:12.07 |
clock_ |
What are the shaders that can map
pixmaps? |
15:12.26 |
brlcad |
what do you mean by map pixmaps? |
15:12.36 |
clock_ |
cause pixmaps to appear on objects |
15:12.37 |
brlcad |
you can stack *any* shader on top of any
other |
15:12.54 |
brlcad |
each layer is effectively a filter |
15:13.06 |
clock_ |
subtractive or multiplicative
filter? |
15:13.21 |
brlcad |
arbitrary, depends on the shader |
15:13.30 |
brlcad |
that's the whole point |
15:13.45 |
clock_ |
How do I make a cube which is painted with a
pixmap? |
15:13.53 |
clock_ |
plastic + bitmap shader? |
15:14.05 |
brlcad |
that's one way |
15:14.17 |
clock_ |
and what will be the assumed gamma of the
pixmap in that case? |
15:14.57 |
brlcad |
what answer will make you happy? |
15:15.05 |
clock_ |
the correct one |
15:15.50 |
clock_ |
Or - if you don't understand the question
- |
15:16.04 |
clock_ |
what happens with the pixmap when it enters
the shader? |
15:16.12 |
clock_ |
How is it interpreted, or for what is it
used? |
15:16.43 |
brlcad |
i actually just get the feeling that you're
not understanding my answer |
15:18.15 |
clock_ |
I want to know with what gamma I should
generate the pixfiles |
15:18.15 |
brlcad |
it doesn't boil down to the same gamma metric
you have with the display, you have the values in the image file
that are parsed directly |
15:18.16 |
clock_ |
where do I figure this out or how do I figure
this out? |
15:18.16 |
brlcad |
i suppose you could "say" that they're
linearly looked up |
15:18.25 |
brlcad |
but that isn't entirely true in itself as it
still depends on the light |
15:19.13 |
clock_ |
linearly looked up == gamma is 1.0? |
15:19.53 |
brlcad |
probably the closest corrollary, but again,
that's not entirely valid mapping |
15:20.08 |
clock_ |
what is a corollary and what is a valid
mapping? |
15:20.19 |
clock_ |
I want to know the gamma I should encode it
with! |
15:20.33 |
clock_ |
Or at least tell me how it's calculated
inside |
15:21.11 |
clock_ |
In the worst cause if I don't manage to pry
the answer from you, I can try putting pixels with values of 64 and
128 and look at ratio of the resulting values ;-) |
15:21.24 |
clock_ |
determine by an experiment ;-) |
15:22.48 |
brlcad |
ray is fired at scene, intersection is found
with an object, that object has a texture shader and a phong
shader, texture value is looked up and combined with light
visibility from that position in 3-space, that intensity is
combined with the phong shader's intensity lookup that is similarly
based on light intensity at that point, but also takes into account
shadowing, specularity/diffusion parameters based on object
curvature |
15:23.01 |
brlcad |
that's the jist of "how it's
calculated" |
15:23.42 |
clock_ |
texture value is looked up that means we take
a value triplet from the input pixfile, right? |
15:24.45 |
clock_ |
like if there is say 0x80 0x80 0x40 in the
pixfile, then we take 0x80, 0x80, 0x40... |
15:24.51 |
brlcad |
and on top of all of that, the resulting image
map is then mapped to a framebuffer which can apply a gamma
adjustment, which is then displayed in a display manager window
which can also perform a gamma adjustment |
15:25.53 |
clock_ |
What I am interested in is "texture value is
looked up and combined with light visibility from that position in
3-space, that intensity is |
15:25.56 |
clock_ |
..." |
15:26.16 |
clock_ |
What does the "combined" exacly comprise?
multiplying the pixmap triplet with the light triplex? |
15:26.28 |
clock_ |
triplet |
15:27.42 |
brlcad |
basically yes, through a settable weighting
factor that is part of the phong shader |
15:28.25 |
clock_ |
is there some exponential function applied to
the pixfile before it is multiplied with the ray? |
15:28.52 |
clock_ |
So if I understand it correctly, the pixmap
value defines directly (with some scaling) how much the object
reflects light at that point? |
15:29.08 |
brlcad |
not that comes to mind |
15:29.32 |
brlcad |
no, it doesn't determine how much is actually
reflected -- phong does that |
15:29.56 |
clock_ |
OK lemme express more precisely |
15:30.06 |
clock_ |
if you have some pixel value in the pix file
say 10 |
15:30.18 |
clock_ |
and the pixel happens to reflect 10%
light |
15:30.35 |
brlcad |
ok |
15:30.39 |
clock_ |
and you increase the value in the pix file to
20, now the pixel will reflect 20% of light? |
15:31.25 |
brlcad |
you mean 20% of that 20 intensity? |
15:31.39 |
clock_ |
no I mean that the number of photons will
double |
15:31.49 |
clock_ |
if you imagine the scene like a pinball with
photons |
15:31.57 |
clock_ |
a photon == a pingpong ball |
15:32.34 |
brlcad |
if the pix file has 10 and phong determines
reflectance of 10%, the pixel will be intensity 1 -- increase the
pix file to 20 and with that same reflectance of 10% will result in
a pixel intensity of 2 |
15:33.00 |
clock_ |
yes that makes sense |
15:33.04 |
clock_ |
this is what I wanted to know |
15:33.12 |
clock_ |
in other word, the gamma of the input pixfile
is 1.0 |
15:33.49 |
brlcad |
that is where we diverge |
15:34.31 |
brlcad |
maybe to say that "when combined with phong
paraameters that give a gamma of 1.0", yes the gamma of the input
pixfile is 1.0 |
15:34.40 |
clock_ |
For me, "double the value in the pixfile and
the pixel intensity doubles" is enough for me |
15:35.14 |
archivist |
reflection is linear |
15:36.01 |
brlcad |
that it is |
15:36.13 |
clock_ |
The other possible meaningful implementation
would be that someone would realize that the 8-bit values in the
input pix file cause a banding near 0 because of insufficient
colour depth |
15:36.29 |
clock_ |
and would insert a power-to-2.2 function
between loading the pixfile and sending it into the
shader |
15:37.08 |
clock_ |
but according to what you are saying, it's not
this way |
15:37.17 |
brlcad |
you could leave the pix file unmodified and
make a non-linear light too, or a non-linear shader, or in the
display manager too |
15:38.02 |
clock_ |
no that would produce corrupted
image |
15:38.06 |
brlcad |
banding is a visual artifact of the end result
-- the math occurs in floating point |
15:38.19 |
clock_ |
the pixfile isn't in floating point |
15:38.39 |
brlcad |
i didn't say it is |
15:46.32 |
clock_ |
can I imagine the bitmap shader like there is
an image printed on the object and the pixfile gives reflectivities
in the individual places? |
15:47.25 |
brlcad |
like a bump map? |
15:47.30 |
brlcad |
there is a bump map shader |
15:47.39 |
clock_ |
no |
15:47.58 |
clock_ |
bump map is something where the shape of the
surface is supposed to be distorted, isn't it? |
15:48.09 |
brlcad |
only visually distorted |
15:48.25 |
brlcad |
by changing reflectivities at various places
based on the image |
15:48.48 |
dtidrow |
a displacement map would actually distort the
surface |
15:48.49 |
clock_ |
I always saw the bump map for something that
modulates the normal vector |
15:48.55 |
clock_ |
like embossed relief |
15:49.08 |
dtidrow |
basically, yes |
15:49.16 |
clock_ |
no I don't mean bummap |
15:49.48 |
clock_ |
I mean like if I want to render say a soda
can |
15:49.58 |
brlcad |
clock_: yes, and if you look at the edge of
something that has a bump map, it's got a nice non-bumpy smooth
edge |
15:50.00 |
clock_ |
the soda can is cylinder and they printed
something on that using offset print |
15:50.11 |
clock_ |
the soda can is not wrinkled in any
way |
15:50.49 |
clock_ |
or I want to render a room that has a mural
(painting) on a wall |
15:51.00 |
clock_ |
then I want pixmap and not bumpmap,
right? |
15:51.24 |
brlcad |
you'd generally want both for the visual
effect |
15:51.51 |
brlcad |
or actually model the paint if you're going to
do it "right" in a solid modeling realm |
15:52.12 |
clock_ |
you mean like simulating the fact that the
paint adds thickness to the object? |
15:53.08 |
clock_ |
That's how I modeled a smoke flue that is
painted black inside and white outside |
15:53.09 |
brlcad |
shaders are just visual effects, mostly "fake"
per-se .. if you care about the actual material properties of even
something like paint, you'd give it a physical representation and
model it |
15:53.15 |
clock_ |
0.5mm thin and 0.1mm paint inside |
15:53.19 |
clock_ |
thin -> tin |
15:54.05 |
clock_ |
but that's a bit tedious process when it's not
just a whole surface painted but I want a Ronja logo on
it |
15:54.13 |
clock_ |
then I could use the pixmap instead, couldn't
I? |
15:54.27 |
brlcad |
you can generate geometry from
pixmaps |
15:54.48 |
brlcad |
similar to how the circuitry was modeled in
the principles book |
15:55.24 |
brlcad |
at least I think it covered the circuitry
modeling.. that was how it was done regardless |
15:55.46 |
brlcad |
in general, solid modeling is tedious
;) |
15:56.26 |
clock_ |
I wouldn't say |
15:56.38 |
clock_ |
after I learned the meaning of the
matrix |
15:57.01 |
brlcad |
the tool(s) hopefully make it less tedious,
but the goal of getting something that is physically accurate
(instead of just visually accurate or "close enough") generally
requires providing a lot of detail that you wouldn't intuitively
think you'd need sometimes but you do |
15:57.15 |
clock_ |
cxsx cxsy cxsz cx+= cysx cysy cysz cy+= czsx
czsy czsz cz+= 0 0 0 1 |
15:57.45 |
clock_ |
I don't use the click-click rotations and
shifts anymore, I enter the matrices directly in vi and it's fast
to model |
15:58.36 |
brlcad |
that's good, but is that more the efficiency
of vi or the deficiency of mged? I'd say it's more the
latter |
15:58.59 |
clock_ |
I use mged only for rotations that are not
multiple of 90deg |
15:59.04 |
brlcad |
although that particular feature of using an
external text editor to modify matrices is in mged too |
15:59.06 |
clock_ |
which is say 1% of the model |
15:59.19 |
clock_ |
I would appreciate if I didn |
15:59.24 |
clock_ |
t have to type the trailing 0 0 0 1 |
15:59.47 |
clock_ |
I made a file /home/clock/m containing 1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 and that's a highly valuable tool
:) |
16:00.05 |
clock_ |
in vi I type :r ~/m and I have a matrix and
then I edit one number and I am happy :) |
16:00.48 |
clock_ |
Is it allowed to use tabs instead of spaced in
red? |
16:01.35 |
brlcad |
clock_: if you have your EDITOR var set before
running mged, give 'red object.r' a try |
16:01.51 |
clock_ |
I am using red object.r |
16:02.03 |
brlcad |
ah, okay |
16:02.37 |
brlcad |
tabs should work fine, I think it's any
whitespace |
16:02.37 |
clock_ |
plus the green axes are also invaluable
:) |
16:02.50 |
brlcad |
if not that'd be stupid and would be trivial
to fix |
16:03.05 |
clock_ |
can I even split the line into multiple ones -
using \n as whitespace? |
16:03.20 |
brlcad |
that's what I mean, I believe so .. |
16:03.28 |
clock_ |
wow that's cool :) |
16:03.36 |
brlcad |
if it doesn't work, let me know and I'll fix
it |
16:03.41 |
brlcad |
but it certainly "should" |
16:04.04 |
brlcad |
pretty sure it used to work that way |
16:04.07 |
clock_ |
Then I put the matrix tab-separated on 4
lines |
16:04.40 |
clock_ |
is it possible to easily patch the red so it
puts the matrix there even if it's a unit matrix? |
16:16.19 |
clock_ |
brlcad: I think with your information I will
be able to generate a picture correctly where the colours of the
pixmap are not deformed |
16:16.41 |
clock_ |
so it would look like the assumed physical
reality |
16:25.29 |
CIA-5 |
BRL-CAD: 03brlcad * 10brlcad/src/mged/red.c:
even if the matrix is an identity matrix, print it so that the user
has a starting point. add a comment about using red with a
read-only db. |
16:25.55 |
clock_ |
wow :) |
16:26.19 |
clock_ |
can you make the matrix to be formatted with
tabs and spread over 4 lines and indented by 1 tab? |
16:26.24 |
clock_ |
Then it would be even easier to edit |
16:26.38 |
clock_ |
and now when can I downloaded this CVS
brlcad? |
16:26.45 |
clock_ |
when -> where? |
16:37.26 |
brlcad |
have to make sure multiline works
first |
16:37.37 |
CIA-5 |
BRL-CAD: 03brlcad * 10brlcad/src/mged/red.c:
massive ws cleanup, make braces consistently match hacking
style |
16:41.27 |
clock_ |
I have a complicated model of almost whole
Ronja installation |
16:41.31 |
clock_ |
http://ronja.twibright.com/3d/ |
16:41.47 |
clock_ |
some of the files can be termporarily
incomplete/empty/absent because I am rsyncing at the
moment |
16:42.19 |
CIA-5 |
BRL-CAD: 03brlcad * 10brlcad/TODO: libbu
routine to make a temp file reliably/consistently |
16:42.39 |
clock_ |
look for "ronja" keyword |
16:42.51 |
clock_ |
actually the manpage of rsync suggests that
rsync should be pretty atomic. |
16:43.07 |
clock_ |
so don't worry :) |
16:53.12 |
CIA-5 |
BRL-CAD: 03brlcad * 10brlcad/src/mged/red.c:
restructure file so that the function declarations can go
away. |
17:35.32 |
CIA-5 |
BRL-CAD: 03brlcad *
10brlcad/src/librt/Makefile.am: |
17:35.32 |
CIA-5 |
BRL-CAD: while convenient and would otherwise
be usefule, you can't reliably use '+=' |
17:35.32 |
CIA-5 |
BRL-CAD: operator on automake variables
without requiring more current versions of |
17:35.32 |
CIA-5 |
BRL-CAD: automake be installed (which we
don't) so instead set a var and use accordingly |
17:40.08 |
CIA-5 |
BRL-CAD: 03brlcad * 10brlcad/TODO: add
configure support for enabling/disabling framebuffers, display
managers, image converters, and geometry converters |
18:11.27 |
``Erik |
"download this cvs brlcad"? |
18:11.43 |
``Erik |
read the cvs instructions at http://sourceforge.net/projects/brlcad |
18:12.02 |
``Erik |
namely, http://sourceforge.net/cvs/?group_id=105292 |
18:13.49 |
CIA-5 |
BRL-CAD: 03brlcad *
10brlcad/src/other/openNURBS/Makefile.am: |
18:13.49 |
CIA-5 |
BRL-CAD: also do not need the openNURBS
wrapper functions zcalloc() and zcfree() since |
18:13.49 |
CIA-5 |
BRL-CAD: we're just letting zlib do it's own
thing. compiling them in results in |
18:13.49 |
CIA-5 |
BRL-CAD: multiple symbol definitions (and link
errors) on os x at link time. now links. |
18:27.34 |
CIA-5 |
BRL-CAD: 03brlcad * 10brlcad/autogen.sh:
remove more previous build products, now including aclocal.m4
too |
18:59.23 |
*** join/#brlcad clock_
(i=clock@84-72-61-62.dclient.hispeed.ch) |
19:40.19 |
CIA-5 |
BRL-CAD: 03erikgreenwald * 10brlcad/
(configure.ac include/common.h): only include brlcad_config.h if
actually building BRL-CAD. Prevents preprocessor redefinition
warnings for things like PACKAGE. (this is the first step towards a
cleaning activity). |
19:55.13 |
``Erik |
'thoom' |
19:56.22 |
clock_ |
We have a wind here in Europe |
19:56.30 |
clock_ |
with an online bodycount |
19:58.08 |
CIA-5 |
BRL-CAD: 03erikgreenwald * 10brlcad/misc/ (32
files in 32 dirs): define the BRLCADBUILD preprocessor
symbol |
20:27.37 |
Maloeran |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6270657.stm
Good news, but I especially like the picture :) |
20:36.39 |
``Erik |
hm, yeah, gccisms |
20:36.44 |
``Erik |
__attribute__ is very gcc |
20:37.33 |
``Erik |
-std=c99, too |
20:38.16 |
Maloeran |
If you disable SSE support, I don't think
there will be many __attribute__ left |
20:38.39 |
``Erik |
heh, the notion is hardly gcc specific...
gcc's implementation is just radically unlike everyone
elses... |
20:38.46 |
``Erik |
very... linuxy, that way... kinda
microsofty |
20:39.38 |
``Erik |
(though much cleaner than the usual #pragma
mechanism) |
20:41.59 |
Maloeran |
It's clean enough, it could be abstracted
through some #define ALIGNED __attribute__((aligned(16))) if you
want |
20:43.01 |
``Erik |
blows up good on gcc2.95 heh |
20:43.20 |
Maloeran |
Really? Surprising |
20:44.36 |
``Erik |
'const restrict' seems to confuse it |
20:44.58 |
Maloeran |
Non-sense, restrict is c99 and that's
perfectly valid |
20:46.37 |
``Erik |
... gcc 4.2 probably doesn't implement c99
perfectly, and this irix box has gcc 2.95 on it... |
20:46.43 |
``Erik |
./RF/graph.h:47: parse error before
`elem' |
20:47.19 |
Maloeran |
Then it doesn't understand "restrict", perhaps
it just doesn't support C99 |
20:47.49 |
``Erik |
oh, wait, there it is, hah |
20:47.53 |
``Erik |
cc1: unknown C standard `gnu99' |
20:48.22 |
Maloeran |
Woohoo. Okay, gcc >=3.x is
required |
21:04.59 |
*** join/#brlcad iday
(n=iday@c-68-50-191-200.hsd1.md.comcast.net) |
21:09.42 |
CIA-5 |
BRL-CAD: 03lbutler *
10brlcad/src/gtools/g_qa.1: Added documentation for -t
option. |
21:10.19 |
``Erik |
it's just gettin' to be that time of
day |
21:12.38 |
iday |
finally got the $%^& pro-e converter
running under linux |
21:13.15 |
dtidrow_work |
hehy |
21:13.24 |
dtidrow_work |
heh, rather... |
21:14.45 |
iday |
'course now I need to remove the inappropriate
debugging comments... |
21:16.34 |
brlcad |
sorted out the makefile crap in
src/external/ProEngineer/mk.in ? |
21:16.43 |
iday |
heh - not exactly |
21:16.44 |
iday |
:-) |
21:16.58 |
iday |
but I should - to make it easier to repeat
;-) |
21:17.49 |
brlcad |
really needs a --with-proe flag so you can
specify where ptc's junk is installed |
21:18.46 |
iday |
yes - I'd like to get it automake-ified - but
that's more work than I'm gonna do today... |
21:19.13 |
iday |
pro/e has eaten up my supply of patience
(around 0900 this morning) |
21:19.38 |
brlcad |
woke up at 5am for some reason today |
21:19.42 |
brlcad |
i'm starting to pay for it |
21:19.46 |
iday |
ewwww |
21:23.52 |
brlcad |
iday: something weird about your sf account ..
it doesn't send e-mails for you when you commit |
21:23.59 |
brlcad |
does it dump any errors? |
21:24.30 |
``Erik |
iday == jay-lo? |
21:36.03 |
*** join/#brlcad clock_
(i=clock@84-72-61-62.dclient.hispeed.ch) |
22:18.28 |
CIA-5 |
BRL-CAD: 03erikgreenwald * 10brlcad/src/adrt/
(24 files in 6 dirs): uppercase all #define symbols |
22:50.00 |
*** join/#brlcad rusito
(n=c9e627f4@bz.bzflag.bz) |
22:51.55 |
*** join/#brlcad IriX64
(n=IriX64@bas3-sudbury98-1168050276.dsl.bell.ca) |
23:33.47 |
*** join/#brlcad IriX64
(n=IriX64@bas3-sudbury98-1168050276.dsl.bell.ca) |