As a fun (and possibly time-wasting) diversion, automate the whole breakpoint-call-stack-watching process. Instead of just setting breakpoints, figure out how to obtain stack traces programmatically. Every time the program runs past a certain part of the code, append the stack trace to a text file. Pull out your favorite scripting language and convert this text file into a format http://graphviz.org/ can understand, and you've got yourself a neat little run-time call-graph generator. Of course this is predicated on the fact that you can generate call stacks, i've never tried it in C/C++...
Obviously, it helps if your familiar with graphviz. If you're into graphs and such, it can transform a boring day (week, month...) of trawling through crappy code into a fun experience in scripting and making big fancy-looking graphs to impress your co-workers...
Why is it that every wiki software has to reinvent the version control system? why not use existing, proven version control systems (Mecurial, Bzr, git, SVN, Darcs, etc) and maintain wikis, including wikipedia, like software source code? you know, with unstable development branches, a stable verified branch, maybe even a 'testing' branch that automatically receives tested^H^H^H^H^H^H verified copies of unstable pages. (yes, I'm a Debian user)
Think about it, instead of creating whole websites devoted to a single new branch, you just run 'bzr branch en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo', work on you're branch & push it to unstable. Editors take the place of testers, they're responsible for verifying and pushing changes into stable. Sure, 'bugs' in an encyclopedia aren't as cut'n'dry as bugs in software, but if this process can produce software as stable as Debian, surely it could produce a 'stable' encyclopedia. Yeah it'll be 2 years out of date, but when people start bitching about something they don't like, they can just make their own little branch that satisfys their personal world-view.
now, where did I leave that copy of the moinmoin source.....
you need a $100 board to program in C? The Atmel AT90USBKey is $30, needs no additional hardware and has more than enough ram & flash to program in C. There's also plenty of other small 8Bit development boards out there, for much less than $100, that will easily handle a good chunk of compiled C.
Slashdot Mirror
the Q6600 will default to 1.6 GHz to save power, at least it does for me under ubuntu 7.10. I'm guessing the cpu actually ran at 2.4 under load...
As a fun (and possibly time-wasting) diversion, automate the whole breakpoint-call-stack-watching process. Instead of just setting breakpoints, figure out how to obtain stack traces programmatically. Every time the program runs past a certain part of the code, append the stack trace to a text file. Pull out your favorite scripting language and convert this text file into a format http://graphviz.org/ can understand, and you've got yourself a neat little run-time call-graph generator. Of course this is predicated on the fact that you can generate call stacks, i've never tried it in C/C++...
Obviously, it helps if your familiar with graphviz. If you're into graphs and such, it can transform a boring day (week, month...) of trawling through crappy code into a fun experience in scripting and making big fancy-looking graphs to impress your co-workers...
Why is it that every wiki software has to reinvent the version control system? why not use existing, proven version control systems (Mecurial, Bzr, git, SVN, Darcs, etc) and maintain wikis, including wikipedia, like software source code? you know, with unstable development branches, a stable verified branch, maybe even a 'testing' branch that automatically receives tested^H^H^H^H^H^H verified copies of unstable pages. (yes, I'm a Debian user)
Think about it, instead of creating whole websites devoted to a single new branch, you just run 'bzr branch en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo', work on you're branch & push it to unstable. Editors take the place of testers, they're responsible for verifying and pushing changes into stable. Sure, 'bugs' in an encyclopedia aren't as cut'n'dry as bugs in software, but if this process can produce software as stable as Debian, surely it could produce a 'stable' encyclopedia. Yeah it'll be 2 years out of date, but when people start bitching about something they don't like, they can just make their own little branch that satisfys their personal world-view.
now, where did I leave that copy of the moinmoin source.....
you need a $100 board to program in C? The Atmel AT90USBKey is $30, needs no additional hardware and has more than enough ram & flash to program in C. There's also plenty of other small 8Bit development boards out there, for much less than $100, that will easily handle a good chunk of compiled C.