[9fans] a simple game.

[9fans] a simple game.

[Federico Benavento]

http://www.tip9ug.jp/who/fgb/memo.tgz

enjoy.
--
Federico G. Benavento

Re: [9fans] a simple game.

[andrey mirtchovski]

that's nmice, i used to play the polist version (pexeso) as a kid a lot
:) now you need to add images in and make it 128x128 squares ;)

> http://www.tip9ug.jp/who/fgb/memo.tgz
>
> enjoy.
> --
> Federico G. Benavento

Re: [9fans] a simple game.

[Federico Benavento]

> that's nmice, i used to play the polist version (pexeso) as a kid a lot
> :) now you need to add images in and make it 128x128 squares ;)
he, he.

wrote it some time ago, to see how was programming with libdraw,
borrowed somo code from colors.c

--
Federico G. Benavento

Re: [9fans] a simple game.

[Adrian Tritschler]

Federico Benavento wrote:
>>that's nmice, i used to play the polist version (pexeso) as a kid a lot
>>:) now you need to add images in and make it 128x128 squares ;)

> he, he.

> wrote it some time ago, to see how was programming with libdraw,
> borrowed somo code from colors.c

*chuckle* I can even waste time playing it on plan9ports

	Adrian

---------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Tritschler                          mailto:ajft@ajft.org
Latitude 38°S, Longitude 145°E, Altitude 50m,      Shoe size 44
---------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] a simple game.

[David Leimbach]

That's really COOL!  and a nice example program.

Dave
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 21:00:36 -0300, Federico Benavento
<benavento@gmail.com> wrote:
> > that's nmice, i used to play the polist version (pexeso) as a kid a lot
> > :) now you need to add images in and make it 128x128 squares ;)
> he, he.
>
> wrote it some time ago, to see how was programming with libdraw,
> borrowed somo code from colors.c
>
> --
> Federico G. Benavento
>

Re: [9fans] a simple game.

[andrey mirtchovski]

i know, i know -- use 9fans' faces for images!

"sh*t, where did choate go???!"

Re: [9fans] a simple game.

[David Leimbach]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 18:05:15 -0700, andrey mirtchovski
<mirtchov@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> i know, i know -- use 9fans' faces for images!


That'd be pretty cool :)


>
> "sh*t, where did choate go???!"
>
>

Re: [9fans] a simple game.

[Federico Benavento]

Here the same game, but using face(6).

http://www.tip9ug.jp/who/fgb/mfaces.c

--
Federico G. Benavento

Re: [9fans] a simple game.

[Federico Benavento]

I used flags, becouse i didn't want to hurt anybody's feelings ;-)

> Here the same game, but using face(6).
>
> http://www.tip9ug.jp/who/fgb/mfaces.c
>
> --
> Federico G. Benavento
>


--
Federico G. Benavento

Re: [9fans] a simple game.

[Russ Cox]

> I used flags, becouse i didn't want to hurt anybody's feelings ;-)

installed as games/memo using faces.

russ

Re: [9fans] a simple game.

[andrey mirtchovski]

by the way, games don't seem to be recompiled whenever a change comes
up... for example the sokoban binary won't find the difficult levels
(available through the menu popup)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Russ Cox wrote:

>> I used flags, becouse i didn't want to hurt anybody's feelings ;-)
>
> installed as games/memo using faces.
>
> russ
>

[9fans] Intel Vanderpool VM extensions

[Wes Kussmaul]

Some people on the Eros list had difficulty finding information about
Intel's new Vanderpool VM extensions. Someone came up with:

<http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/developer/asmo-na/eng/197666.htm>.

...which I thought I'd pass along in case Plan 9 folks had similar difficulty.

Wes Kussmaul

Re: [9fans] Intel Vanderpool VM extensions

[Derek Fawcus]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 03:11:07PM -0500, Wes Kussmaul wrote:
>
> Some people on the Eros list had difficulty finding information about
> Intel's new Vanderpool VM extensions. Someone came up with:
>
> <http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/developer/asmo-na/eng/197666.htm>.
>
> ...which I thought I'd pass along in case Plan 9 folks had similar difficulty.

Interesting... I'd not heard of this.  SoI had a quick glance...

Does this stuff make the x86 completely virtualisable without
jumping through the hoops that vmware / qemu have to follow?

DF

Re: [9fans] Intel Vanderpool VM extensions

[Martin C.Atkins]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:55:05 +0000 Derek Fawcus <dfawcus@cisco.com> wrote:
>..
> > <http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/developer/asmo-na/eng/197666.htm>.
>..
> Interesting... I'd not heard of this.  SoI had a quick glance...
>
> Does this stuff make the x86 completely virtualisable without
> jumping through the hoops that vmware / qemu have to follow?

I don't know. Looks complicated, doesn't it? It was a lack of vision
that they didn't make the architecture virtualizable, right from the
start (when the 386 was defined, or even earlier), like PowerPC. Does
PowerPC (for example) need special instructions? Ugh! I though it was
enough if the 'right' instructions did the 'right' things. This is all
very...., very Intelly, isn't it?

BTW: [Is ARM natively virtualizable? I can't remember, but I suspect not]

As I understand it, the hoops that Vmware has to go through are
somewhat different from those that qemu uses. Vmware 'interprets'
code in pages containing non-virtualizable instructions, and lets the
rest execute natively, while qemu just 'interprets' everything. Hence
qemu can run x86 operating systems on non-x86 processors (and
vice-versa), but Vmware should be faster (especially for application
code). Of course, both use similar JIT-like techniques to make the
'interpretation' go as fast as possible.

However, this means that yes, Vanderpool would/should (assuming
they've got it "right" :-) make vmware 'trivial' (like MOL
(maconlinux) is, on the Mac), but no, it will not help qemu at all,
since the JIT interpretation of code is central to qemu's approach.

[Although there is no reason, in principle, why qemu couldn't also
"give up on" interpretation in the 'right' circumstances (x86 on x86,
user-mode pages, etc), a direction that I believe bochs is following,
thus blurring the differences further. It would probably need a
kernel module 'helper' to do this, though.]

That's my understanding, anyway. Please correct/clarify...

Martin

--
Martin C. Atkins			martin_ml@parvat.com
Parvat Infotech Private Limited		http://www.parvat.com{/,/martin}

Re: [9fans] Intel Vanderpool VM extensions

[Derek Fawcus]

On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 10:59:56AM +0530, Martin C.Atkins wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:55:05 +0000 Derek Fawcus <dfawcus@cisco.com> wrote:
> >..
> > > <http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/developer/asmo-na/eng/197666.htm>.
> >..
> > Interesting... I'd not heard of this.  SoI had a quick glance...
> >
> > Does this stuff make the x86 completely virtualisable without
> > jumping through the hoops that vmware / qemu have to follow?
>
> I don't know. Looks complicated, doesn't it?

I did a bit more reading around,  and yup it does look like it'll
do it.  However it does it my sort of creating a 'ring -1' and
having the lower rings virtualised.  So...  what if one want's
to virtualise 'ring -1' :-)

> However, this means that yes, Vanderpool would/should (assuming
> they've got it "right" :-) make vmware 'trivial' (like MOL
> (maconlinux) is, on the Mac), but no, it will not help qemu at all,
> since the JIT interpretation of code is central to qemu's approach.

Actually it could help qemu - given that kqemu already exists.  It'd
just mean that kqemu would be able to handle rings 0/1/2 as well as
ring 3.

DF