23:41 < matches> I guess apt decided to remove it as part of apt-get autoremove in its infinite wisdom
23:41 <@sulix> I have decided to never call apt-get autoremove.
23:42 <@sulix> If at any point there are too many old packages for me to get things done, I'll just reinstall the OS entirely.
+--- Day changed Mon Jul 07 2014
+08:40 < matches> I try to avoid it, but sometimes apt won't let me do anything because it would break some dependency
+08:40 < matches> Although usually even after I run autoremove it complains
+08:41 < matches> Had to use aptitude to fix my "You can'd have kde-runtime!" issues
+08:45 < matches> Anyway wolfram alpha says that example +45,10 - +128 == +18446744073709551533,9
+08:45 < matches> is correct
+08:45 < matches> Checking the algorithm using 8 bits it should work too
+08:46 < matches> So it works as long as you supply the leading zeros...
+08:46 < matches> (On that particular case...)
+08:48 < matches> I hope it's not interpreting Arbint(128L) as Arbint(128u, ...)
+08:48 < matches> Nope sanity seems to prevail there
+08:50 < matches> Ah
+08:50 < matches> Ok
+08:50 < matches> First bug of the day: The subtracted argument needs to be resized
+08:50 < matches> As I am doing (45,10) - (128)
+08:59 < matches> :O
+08:59 < matches> I passed the realops test
+09:00 < matches> And it's also a lot faster now!
+09:00 < matches> Probably because the subtraction bug meant it was spending a long time in division to get the wrong result
+09:01 < matches> Yeah it should have been obvious division can't have been that slow for numbers starting at 64 bits since it does at most as many iterations as the number of bits
+09:01 < matches> Oh well
+09:02 < matches> Should probably not celebrate just yet, now the bezier looks really wierd again
+09:04 < matches> Ok
+09:04 < matches> Actually compiling with Real == Rational<Arbint> might be a better test
+09:04 < matches> But it still passes
+09:05 < matches> In particular it passes with Arbints where int64_t fails horribly
+09:05 < matches> So something is right
+09:05 < matches> Just not all of it...
+09:08 < matches> The GPU rendering seems to workish
+09:09 < matches> We really quickly end up with Arbints of size 30 digits or so :S
+09:09 < matches> Which is big enough to give an overflow in doubles I think
+09:10 < matches> Rational::ToDouble can probably be written as double(integer division) + Rational(remainder, quotient).ToDouble()
+09:10 < matches> (With some things to stop it recursing infinitely)
+09:20 < matches> Or even double(integer division) + double(remainder)/double(quotient)
+09:20 < matches> I don't think any recursion is needed
+09:22 < matches> Oh, there's a "pow" call that is probably broken
+09:24 <@sulix> Yeah, I feel the growing quickly is just a fact of life.
+09:25 <@sulix> Perhaps changing the zooming to avoid coprimes or something.
+09:27 <@sulix> I'm pretty certain that about 3 seconds of zooming is enough to make us need precision and range to match measuring the size of the visible universe in Planck lengths, too.
+09:28 <@sulix> "New biggest Arbint of size 173"
+09:28 <@sulix> and counting...
+09:34 < matches> haha
+09:34 < matches> There are more issues I spotted with add and subtract
+09:34 < matches> Basically you have to add the leading zeros - all of them
+09:35 < matches> My patch only simulates adding one leading zero
+09:35 < matches> Actually maybe I don't need to add them all, just enough until the borrow becomes zero
+09:36 < matches> But whatever
+09:36 < matches> If you're left with a borrow you can't assume that subtracting it from the next digit won't cause a borrow as well
+09:37 < matches> Realops is not a good enough tester
+09:42 <@sulix> Surely if there's borrow bit, subracting it from zero will always give another...?
+09:42 < matches> You only need as many as there are digits in your number
+09:42 < matches> At most
+09:42 < matches> If you still have a borrow at the end
+09:42 < matches> That means the result is negative
+09:43 <@sulix> Yeah, that's what I thought: you need to cap the number of digits you add.
+09:44 < matches> The problem was the algorithm before didn't finish all the borrows
+09:44 < matches> eg: 100 - 2 would have become "-8"
+09:44 < matches> Because 2 only has one digit
+09:44 <@sulix> My powers of mathematics tell me that that is not quite correct.
+09:45 < matches> What, that our algorithm was wrong?
+09:45 <@sulix> No, that 100-2 is not -8
+09:45 < matches> Yes
+09:45 < matches> Yes that's the problem :P
+09:46 < matches> So basically the two numbers need to be the same size but since we have a constant argument I'm sticking in a "borrow_digits" vector if there is a borrow
+09:46 < matches> Addition also needs it for carry
+09:46 < matches> Damn
+09:47 < matches> I'd hoped that might fix the beziers not looking like beziers on the CPU bug
+09:50 <@sulix> I've pushed code to clear the carry/borrow flag before adding/subtracting.
+09:50 <@sulix> I don't think any bug is triggered, but there was the potential for off-by-one errors.
+09:52 < matches> Argh no
+09:52 < matches> Merge
+09:53 < matches> Yeah I'm pushing a fix for bugs that I don't think we've seen (yet)
+09:54 <@sulix> Out of curiosity, I tried removing the Simplify() calls from Rational.
+09:54 <@sulix> Relatedly, I've coined the term "NaN soup"
+09:54 < matches> Oh, clearing the carry/borrow flag might actually fix a bug with the code I just committed
+09:54 < matches> No wait it won't
+09:55 < matches> Eh it's still kind of dangerous to assume it isn't set to start with
+09:55 <@sulix> I think the flag was probably already cleared by the code the compiler generated, but that might not be the case if it's optimized.
+09:55 < matches> One of my early attempts had inline adc instructions in a for loop
+09:56 < matches> Which failed miserably because the for loop was clearing the carry flag :P
+09:57 <@sulix> For some reason "*=" segfaults if optimization is enabled, but I don't know why.
+09:57 < matches> Yuk
+09:58 <@sulix> Somehow we end up with "mul" as a null reference.
+09:58 < matches> Rataional::*= or Arbint?
+09:58 <@sulix> Arbint
+09:58 <@sulix> (So, also rational)
+09:58 <@sulix> Valgrind isn't picking anything up.
+09:58 < matches> null references are the worst
+09:59 < matches> Since I'm pretty sure the point of a reference is that it is never null...
+09:59 < matches> I'm sure this doesn'
+09:59 < matches> t stop people from deliberately creating null references
+09:59 < matches> And also checking that they are not null
+10:02 <@sulix> Tried compiling with clang. Nope.
+10:02 <@sulix> Apparently not even #include <iostream> compiles with clang.
+10:02 < matches> It might be worth implementing a non assembly version of those functions
+10:03 <@sulix> Yeah, that's always a good idea.
+10:03 <@sulix> The assembly ones are more fun, though.
+10:16 < matches> Hmm I should probably head towards the meeting
+16:23 < matches> I have pushed a Gmpint wrapper thing
+16:23 < matches> It mimics Arbint as closely as possible.
+16:24 < matches> Well by that I mean I just wrapped all the calls to mpz_add() etc in operators
+16:24 < matches> It doesn't have all of Arbint's more esoteric functions
+16:24 < matches> If we need bit shifts I think I can add them
+16:27 < matches> So, writing stuff...
+16:28 < matches> Running arbint_vs_gmpint.test in valgrind takes a fair while
+16:28 < matches> We will have the definitive answer of just how terrible our multiplication is compared to the Professional (TM) implementation
+16:29 < matches> I do have some good news, I think our string conversion might be better
+16:29 < matches> Well if you ignore the division
+16:31 < matches> *= is about 11 times slower
+16:32 < matches> Most of that is in std::vector::resize()
+16:32 < matches> But even just mul_digits is greater than the entire Gmpint::operator*=
+16:32 < matches> The plot thickens as I try division
+16:32 < matches> Which is a good opportunity to get food because it will probably take an hour
+16:34 < matches> Note: Don't disable Debug messages if you want time to get food :(
+16:35 < matches> And division is just under 100* slower
+16:36 < matches> No
+16:36 < matches> 1000*
+16:37 < matches> So... if we change Rational<Arbint> to Rational<Gmpint>...
+16:41 < matches> We still get {nan,nan,nan,nan} eventually but it is generally less shoddy
+16:50 <@sulix> Cool: looking at this now.
+16:50 <@sulix> I'm digging through the gmp source code as well.
+16:51 <@sulix> They have a similar "divide by single int64_t" optimization.
+16:51 <@sulix> Also their code is 90% preprocessor macros.
+16:51 < matches> Welp
+16:51 < matches> At least we have a readable Arbint
+16:52 < matches> I don't know what use a readable but slow implementation is
+16:52 <@sulix> Ah: I see what they're doing: this is quite clever, particularly from a pure maths point of view.
+16:52 <@sulix> They've got a natural number implementation, and have then built their integer representation around that.
+16:53 <@sulix> The natural numbler implementation is just a huge set of directories with different assembly implementation.
+16:53 <@sulix> So there's an "x86_64" directory, and in that there's a bunch of assembly + a bunch of directories with optimized versions for different individual processor models.
+16:55 <@sulix> Also their assembly has lots of ASCII art comments.
+16:56 <@sulix> and macros.
+17:07 < matches> Yeah "just use GMP" is probably the answer
+17:08 < matches> Their Makefiles are pretty intimidating
+17:22 < matches> I like that they seem to store the sign as part of the size
+17:22 < matches> If something has a negative size it is negative and has |size| digits
+17:34 < matches> I guess I will try and write some sort of report about how we implemented Arbitrary Integers but they are terrible compared to existing implementations :P
+--- Day changed Thu Jul 24 2014
+14:44 < matches> So I was going to work on the project but existential dread
+14:45 < matches> About whether my major exists
+14:45 < matches> Do I exist?
+14:49 <@sulix> Are you thinking? Because cogito ergo sum.
+14:50 < matches> I'm not sure I was thinking when I picked this major...
+14:50 <@sulix> I did some project code yesterday and then a bug I thought I'd fixed reappeared so I got distracted failing to fix that.
+14:50 < matches> Haha
+14:53 < matches> Should I upset everyone and recommend freshers for wheel again...
+14:54 <@sulix> I'm all for it, but I think the consensus was that we need to make them actually do wheel-y projects first.
+14:55 < matches> That seems kind of hypocritical though
+14:55 < matches> Because nearly none of active wheel has actually done wheel-y projects
+14:55 < matches> Certainly not before getting on wheel
+14:56 <@sulix> My current random guess is that the problem is that people used to fix the desktops and stuff, and now everyone has their own laptops to break.
+14:56 < matches> But I'll be quiet or people might decide I need to be removed due to lack of doing useful things
+14:56 < matches> Yeah
+14:56 < matches> That too
+14:57 <@sulix> I'll definitely bring it up at the meeting.
+15:02 <@sulix> So which CoderDojo forms do I need to fill out?
+15:02 < matches> Ooh!
+15:02 < matches> http://coderdojowa.org.au/volunteer
+15:02 < matches> This one
+15:03 < matches> But now you've said that I'm already adding you to the mailing list...
+15:04 < matches> There's a thing on Saturday in 2.01 in CS at 12:00pm
+15:04 < matches> I hope people actually show up because we are pretty short on presenters
+15:04 <@sulix> Yeah, I've got a programming competition then. I'm trying to work out how much of the schedule for the competitions exists.
+15:06 <@sulix> Okay, apparently there are programming competitions every saturday in August, which will be fun.
+15:07 <@sulix> Although half of them are "details TBD," which sounds ominous.
+15:07 <@sulix> Also there is a round 2 and a round 4 but no round 3.
+15:11 <@sulix> Okay: it looks like the only weeks I don't have programming competitions on are the last 3 on the form.
+15:13 <@sulix> Also I suspect they're running out of names for the programming competitions, because this Saturday's is called the "South Pacific Winter Programming Carnival".
+15:21 < matches> Haha
+15:27 <@sulix> Form submitted. Sorry for the snarkiness.
+15:40 < matches> Brilliant
+15:40 < matches> You can do a C or C++ workshop or something :P
+15:40 < matches> Or just talk about Commander Keen that'll work
+15:40 < matches> Or "Why Javascript is awful and you should forget all the lessons"
+15:42 <@sulix> "Intro to DOS programming." :P
+18:38 < matches> I did a sort of half hearted attempt at writing more about Arbints
+18:39 < matches> Maybe I'll try put fonts in
+18:39 < matches> That seems vaguely like not what I am supposed to be doing right now :P
+18:43 < matches> There's that virtual FPU sitting there doing nothing
+18:43 < matches> That I promised to do things with in my lit review
+18:43 < matches> That Tim is marking
+18:43 < matches> When I haven't actually done anything with it and he knows it...
+18:44 < matches> I can't help but feel like we need a more impressive thing to zoom in on
+18:44 < matches> Or even a way to draw things once we have zoomed in
+18:46 < matches> Does "We implemented Arbitrary Precision Integers but GMP did it better" count as research?
+19:13 < matches> Do we have a memory leak?
+19:13 < matches> I've been running it for a while and things are slowing down
+19:25 <@sulix> matches: With GMP or just doubles?
+19:27 <@sulix> My quick check has us not leaking memory with doubles.
+19:27 <@sulix> Well, X leaks memory and the nVidia driver leaks memory, but we're fine.
+19:35 < matches> I was actually running with singles :S
+19:35 < matches> See push to documents repo
+19:35 < matches> There is a pdf
+19:35 < matches> I did a thing
+19:38 < matches> I'm basing the assumption that x86-64 is IEEE compliant on the fact that it passed the "paranoia" program
+19:39 <@sulix> Yeah, x86_64 is IEEE compliant.
+19:39 <@sulix> x86_32 is "mostly" IEEE compliant if I recall.
+19:41 < matches> Well a picture tells a thousand words
+19:41 < matches> So I think I wrote 8000 words today
+19:41 < matches> Progress!
+19:43 <@sulix> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/tree/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_defines.h?id=9d6166880da83887e3246fb4498c3a07d979cc3b#n162
+19:43 <@sulix> I'll see if I can find where they actually set it to non IEEE.
+19:43 < matches> Oh I was going to say fglrx did different things to nVidea but as I don't have nVidea that's difficult to do
+19:45 <@sulix> Although there's this: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2013-July/041555.html
+19:45 <@sulix> Yeah, nVidia, Intel and fglrx all seem to do different things.
+19:45 <@sulix> fglrx does the strangest things.
+19:45 <@sulix> nVidia does the most consistant things.
+19:45 <@sulix> Intel sits nicely in the middle.
+19:46 < matches> If we can get four screenshots of the different things at the same view bounds that might be useful
+19:47 < matches> Also working out more about what the jagged edges implies about the precision/rounding might be helpful
+19:47 < matches> All I've got is "This is clearly not a circle"
+19:48 < matches> So it's still doing that with the quad trees enabled, so I assume the quad trees aren't amazingly quadifying everything yet :P
+19:48 <@sulix> The quadtrees are basically doing nothing but occasionally causing bugs.
+19:48 <@sulix> http://davidgow.net/stuff/ipdf-nvidia.png
+19:48 < matches> That is progress at least
+19:49 < matches> Thanks
+19:49 < matches> I will update the others to be the same view bounds
+19:49 < matches> I *think* we have code to set the view bounds at start?
+19:51 <@sulix> http://davidgow.net/stuff/ipdf-intel.png
+19:51 < matches> Haha
+19:51 < matches> Well it's really obvious that that's different
+19:52 < matches> Can you rerun it with -b 0.0869386 0.634194 2.63295e-07 2.63295e-07
+19:52 < matches> Obsessive compulsive...
+19:52 < matches> Must all be same view bounds...
+19:53 < matches> I'd run it on my other laptop with intel integrated graphics except the keyboard still doesn't work
+19:55 < matches> Actually don't bother
+19:55 <@sulix> http://davidgow.net/stuff/ipdf-nvidia1.png
+19:57 <@sulix> http://davidgow.net/stuff/ipdf-intel1.png
+19:59 < matches> oah wierd stuff is happening with the quad tree
+19:59 < matches> There is a big circle and a little circle
+19:59 < matches> Is that supposed to be here...
+20:00 < matches> The distance between them is not constant :S
+20:09 <@sulix> Yeah, that doesn't happen on intel and is the bug I've been hitting my head against.
+20:09 <@sulix> Pretty certain I'm trying to render one more object than there actually is somewhere, maybe corruping memory in the process.
+20:32 < matches> Ok so it turns out the CPU is actually about as terrible as the GPU at those view bounds when you replace the "double" with "float" in the Circle Renderer :S
+20:32 <@sulix> That's what I expected.
+20:32 <@sulix> It looks like the nVidia one, right?
+20:32 < matches> But it does slightly different wrong things!
+20:34 < matches> It looks similar-ish
+20:35 < matches> It is blocky as opposed to zig zaggy
+20:39 < matches> As in it doesn't look as whack as intel
+20:43 <@sulix> Hmm... I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, but I can't see any artefacts at all with CPU rendering w/ those bounds.
+20:55 < matches> They are hard coded as doubles
+20:55 < matches> Not floats
+20:55 < matches> Or reals rather
+20:56 <@sulix> Ah.
+20:56 <@sulix> This explains much.
+21:08 < matches> I have pushed a thing
+21:09 < matches> It almost sounds like a real paper
+21:09 < matches> Until you realise all it is is "we drew some circles and they look different"
+21:09 < matches> Also your screenshots had some kind of crazy blue glowy border
+21:10 <@sulix> Yeah, that's the KDE window shadow.
+21:10 < matches> Fancy
+21:10 <@sulix> It used to make the nVidia driver corrupt screenshots, but it seems to work now.
+21:11 < matches> I'm pretty pleased with that 4 way comparison figure...
+21:12 < matches> "One of these things is not like the others..."
+21:12 < matches> *cough* intel
+21:12 <@sulix> The conclusion is brilliant.
+21:15 < matches> If we assume the nVidia and x86-64 figures are what things are supposed to look like
+21:15 < matches> fglrx tries really hard
+21:15 < matches> But doesn't quite make it
+21:16 < matches> (I'm pretty sure that's just a particularly good view for it)
+21:16 < matches> (If you move it around it goes insane)
+21:16 < matches> I can respect the intel shader
+21:16 < matches> It isn't afraid to blatantly disregard the rules
+21:17 < matches> intel driver rather
+21:17 < matches> Not sure why I put "shader" there
+21:17 < matches> This has not been as productive as I hoped
+21:18 < matches> Still
+21:18 < matches> We finally have something written that Tim can pass judgement on
+21:18 < matches> He's still in the country right?
+21:19 < matches> He might want to finish passing judgement on my literature review first :S
+21:21 <@sulix> I think he's still in the country, but don't hold me to that.
+21:22 < matches> Ok, so if you translate around with the CPU things don't go insane, but they do on the GPU. That might be caused by something else though.
+21:23 < matches> I'll be at University tomorrow
+21:24 <@sulix> I might head in, too, then.
+21:25 <@sulix> Do things still "go insane" on the GPU with CPU-side coordinate transforms.
+21:26 < matches> Yeah
+21:26 < matches> It looks like there is a tear
+21:27 < matches> So you get this rectangle pattern
+21:27 < matches> If you move it around on the CPU it maintains its shape
+21:28 <@sulix> I think that fglrx (or maybe just the AMD hardware) calculates the coordinates per-triangle rather than per-vertex or something.
+21:28 < matches> Under fglrx the bottom part of it sort of maintains its shape but there is a big diagonal line and the stuff above that changes
+21:28 <@sulix> That's pretty weird.
+21:29 < matches> Also the bottom part doesn't have concave bits but the top occasionally gets one
+21:29 < matches> concave/overhanging whatever
+21:29 <@sulix> The whole thing maintains its shape on nvidia (and even intel)
+21:29 < matches> Well, the bottom half (and also the CPU/nVidia entire thing) looks kind of like a stair case
+21:29 < matches> The top bit gets all these sticky out bits and overhangs
+21:30 < matches> Which brings us to our next paper
+21:30 < matches> The geology of fglrx
+21:30 <@sulix> Intel also does the "staircase" on the other side of the circle.
+21:30 < matches> On the other side...
+21:30 < matches> Hmm the plot thickens
+21:31 < matches> Oh well I need to sleep
+21:31 < matches> Why do I feel like I have actually lost sleep over the holidays...
+21:32 < matches> I am not ready for semester to start :(
+21:32 <@sulix> I know exactly what you mean.
+21:33 < matches> I seem to have been roped into unpaid work with physics
+21:34 <@sulix> Oh dear. More lab demonstrating or something more interesting?
+21:34 < matches> Hopefully if I visit ECM they won't make me do GENG5505 yet
+21:34 < matches> Fixing my honours experiment I think...
+21:35 <@sulix> Another pipe corroded through?
+21:35 < matches> Haha
+21:35 < matches> They were wondering where all the electronics went
+21:35 < matches> (I have most of it)
+21:35 < matches> (Also it's no longer functional)
+21:36 < matches> (I may have taken some of it apart...)
+21:36 < matches> (Although really the sensible option would have been to burn it with fire)
+21:37 < matches> Goodnight anyway
+21:37 <@sulix> I'm required to "correct" anything they want to change with this project after submitting it.
+21:37 <@sulix> On the morrow, then!
+--- Day changed Fri Jul 25 2014
+11:24 < matches> I'm at UCC
+11:39 <@sulix> Okay, I'll show up once I've sorted out this acedemic record stuff.
+12:05 < matches> I went to ECM but apparently just a few other people are having difficulties...
+18:24 < matches> So steam browser supports html5 canvas but not keyboard events
+18:24 < matches> This seems to happen with a lot of browsers
+18:25 < matches> We support html5 canvas (which is pretty much solely designed for web based games)
+18:25 < matches> But we don't support any way to actually pass input to the page that doesn't suck
+18:25 < matches> (I'm looking at you Safari)
+18:31 < matches> It sort of spoils the "HTML5 is AWESOME" message the HTML5 people are aiming for
+18:31 < matches> The best bit of html5 is <canvas> and that you no longer need to use html because you can just draw everything in the canvas...
+18:32 < matches> Which is scarily similar to using PostScript
+--- Day changed Mon Jul 28 2014
+10:05 < matches> In 2.07 now
+10:07 < matches> You removed SDL from contrib
+10:07 < matches> So now it won't compile on the lab machines
+10:07 * matches gets out the laptop then
+--- Day changed Tue Jul 29 2014
+09:59 < matches> I seem to have this bizarre illness
+10:00 < matches> Where half my head feels fine
+10:00 < matches> And the other half feels like I've been trying to read brainfuck
+10:00 < matches> I hope you don't catch it
+10:00 < matches> The side that is sick is the side that was closest to the group hug
+10:00 < matches> Coincidence!?
+10:00 < matches> I think not!
+10:08 < matches> You know how there's this theory about the two halves of the brain being semi independent and sort of subconsciously able to think by themselves
+10:08 < matches> I think the left side of my brain is dead
+10:08 < matches> It's not responding to pings
+10:09 < matches> I think the project working side might be the alive one though, so we shall see if I can actually do something useful
+--- Log closed Tue Jul 29 23:13:08 2014
+--- Log opened Wed Jul 30 12:03:38 2014
+12:03 -!- Irssi: #ipdf: Total of 2 nicks [1 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 1 normal]
+12:03 -!- Irssi: Join to #ipdf was synced in 0 secs
+--- Day changed Sun Aug 03 2014
+12:43 < matches> So I found my moronic mistake with the virtual FPU and it seems to actually work
+12:44 < matches> I think it's even slower than using Rational<Arbint>
+12:44 < matches> Unless everything's slow because of the QT now
+12:45 < matches> There's an awful lot of "Rendering QT node" debug
+12:46 < matches> No its the VFPU that makes sense
+12:47 < matches> Since every floating point operation now requires writing 18 hex characters over a unix domain socket
+12:47 < matches> Hooray VHDL
+12:48 < matches> (I'm sure if you have $$$$ and like Enterprise(TM) software VHDL is great)
+12:48 < matches> I'll just do some miscellaneous things and hopefully some of them will be useful
+12:48 < matches> Bye
+14:14 < matches> So with the VFPU and doing everything on the GPU we have 2.2 FPS
+14:14 < matches> It seems to be able to cope with rectangles on the CPU
+14:15 < matches> The circle may present some difficulties
+14:16 < matches> It would be have been pretty cool to change the vfpu and see if anything makes it look like intel
+14:16 < matches> But ultimately useless I suppose
+14:37 < sulix> There might be some info in the hardware docs, though they're pretty incomprehensible: https://01.org/linuxgraphics/documentation/2013-intel-core-processor-family
+14:38 < sulix> AMD also have manuals: http://developer.amd.com/resources/documentation-articles/developer-guides-manuals/
+14:38 < sulix> nVidia are sworn to secrecy.
+--- Day changed Tue Aug 05 2014
+12:38 < matches> I'm looking at the atril source
+12:38 < matches> To see if I can compile it without the oppressive 400% max zoom
+12:39 < matches> It is rather intense
+12:39 < matches> I think the zooms are set depending on the language?
+12:41 < matches> There are po files which are definitely not position independent object files
+12:43 < matches> #define ZOOM_MAXIMAL(zoom_levels[n_zoom_levels - 1].level)
+12:43 < matches> The plot thickens!
+12:45 < matches> Heh this is actually sort of making sense
+12:45 < matches> They have a "cut-n-paste/zoom-control" directory
+12:48 < matches> I'm confused as to how the maximum zoom is 6400% and yet my version will only zoom to 400%
+12:48 < matches> But I guess I shall compile it from source and see what actually happens
+12:51 < matches> They also have a script to configure their configure script...
+12:51 < matches> Oh dear xml is involved
+12:53 < matches> There needs to be a way to save the status of configure so you don't have to rerun it from scratch every time you fix an error
+12:56 < matches> Our document viewer may only be able to render beziers and circles
+12:56 < matches> But at least it doesn't have any dependencies!
+12:56 < matches> Well many
+12:56 < matches> I suppose since SDL is in contrib we should put GMP in contrib too
+12:57 < matches> But yes, I don't care about caja plugins dammit I want to zoom on a pdf
+13:00 < matches> "Warning: Comparison between pointer and integer"
+13:00 < matches> Aaaah
+13:00 < matches> It compiles...
+13:01 < matches> But where did it put the binary...
+13:02 < matches> Oh great it expects things to be in /usr
+13:03 < matches> I guess I will run "install-sh" and hope I will still have a usable pdf viewer
+13:07 < matches> There's a LOT of G_ and g_ variables
+13:07 < matches> Actually functions
+13:07 < matches> I think g_ does not mean global in this context
+13:07 < matches> Maybe
+13:11 < matches> So it's not just a matter of ZOOM_MAXIMAL being redefined to ridiculously huge numbers having any effect
+13:11 < matches> I guess they use some other library that has zooming
+13:13 < matches> It somehow detects what the maximum zoom should be based on the document as well
+13:13 < matches> This is just over engineering!
+13:19 < matches> ev_view_can_zoom_in (EvView *view)
+13:19 < matches> return view->scale * ZOOM_IN_FACTOR <= ev_document_model_get_max_scale (view->model);
+13:19 < matches> Let
+13:19 * matches casually makes it return true
+13:19 < matches> Also wtf
+13:19 < matches> They have a "gboolean" type
+13:19 < matches> Is "bool" inferior?
+13:19 < matches> What more do you need than true and false
+13:20 < matches> Is bool used as a variable name for something
+13:20 < matches> sigh
+13:24 < matches> No ok it still won't let me zoom in more
+13:25 < matches> g_return_if_fail in the zoom functions
+13:25 < matches> They don't look important
+13:28 < matches> There are a surprising amount of places with a "if zoom or scale is bigger than the maximum, return"
+13:28 < matches> Like, are three checks really necessary
+13:29 < matches> I think you can set model->sizing_mode to "EV_SIZING_FREE" but I have no idea what that will do
+13:29 < matches> So I'll just continue commenting out anything that looks like it will return early from the zoom process...
+13:30 < sulix> Sounds like a plan!
+13:31 < matches> The use of g_ for function names makes me want to stab someone :P
+13:31 < matches> I assume it's related to gtk or maybe just gnome
+13:32 < matches> Also about half their doubles are "gdouble"
+13:32 < matches> And the other half are "double"
+13:32 < matches> :S
+13:32 < sulix> gtk had their own crazy, let's implement everything from scratch idea.
+13:32 < sulix> They have their own "classes" in C, IIRC.
+13:32 < matches> It's pretty object orientated yes
+13:34 < matches> Ok I seem to now be able to zoom in a *bit* more and then it just stops drawing things
+13:35 < matches> No wait it's just hopelessly slow
+13:37 < matches> It also zooms in on the wrong spot and then draws it and then moves the view back to the mouse and draws again
+13:38 < matches> But yes, it doesn't cope well with zooming at all
+13:38 < matches> I was kind of hoping it would work
+13:39 < matches> Maybe if I use a simpler document
+13:43 < matches> Congratulations anyway
+13:43 < matches> We can zoom further on a circle than atril can
+13:44 < matches> Unfortunately the reasons atril can't zoom are probably not related to precision
+13:44 < matches> Maybe I need to find some "if zoom > thing don't draw anything" and comment those out too
+13:44 < matches> Sigh
+14:07 < matches> It is resistant to my valgrind attempts
+14:07 < matches> It seems to have spawned 9 processes
+14:10 < matches> Oh "atril" is actually a series of hideous bash scripts that load libraries or something
+14:12 < matches> You know
+14:12 < matches> I'm sure if we tried
+14:12 < matches> We could make a less shitty pdf viewer out of our program
+14:29 < matches> Interesting
+14:30 < matches> "ev_document_render" got called 10.6 Billion times
+14:30 < matches> I don't think I changed the view that many times...
+14:32 < matches> Ok, so just working on our own viewer is probably better at this point than working out why atril has a heart attack if you zoom
+14:33 < matches> I'm going to pretend this wasn't a waste of time...
+14:41 < matches> "existing pdf viewers cap the view because otherwise they break due to bugs that aren't actually related to precision"
+15:43 < matches> So I suspect the GPU Bezier rendering is buggy
+15:44 < matches> Or maybe it's a quad tree thing
+15:45 < matches> Or both...
+15:46 < matches> I'm pretty sure the appearance of an individual bezier should not depend on what other beziers are in the document :P
+15:47 < matches> Yeah there's wierd quad tree shit going on
+15:48 < matches> I'm going to try and add some sort of glyph/font like thing
+15:49 < matches> It's either that or create hand drawn beziers in the current view
+15:50 < matches> But I feel it desperately needs an example of being able to actually zoom in and create something at an "arbitrary" level
+18:54 < matches> So we sort of have a very broken, very badly written, SVG parser
+18:55 < matches> A bunch of bugs showed up in the bezier rendering
+18:56 < matches> Although it might just be fglrx
+22:23 < sulix> The GL code is now consistantly broken, rather than sporadically broken.
+22:24 < sulix> Trying to render SVGs with it might count as modern art, though.
+22:39 < sulix> Man, the buggier the bézier code gets, the more beautiful its output.
+22:53 < sulix> Voilà: http://davidgow.net/stuff/ipdf-koch-svg.png
+23:11 < sulix> And on the CPU: http://davidgow.net/stuff/ipdf-koch-svg1.png
+--- Day changed Wed Aug 06 2014
+11:00 < matches> That looks amazing!
+11:04 < matches> I'm sorry
+11:04 < matches> All I seem to do is add bugs :S
+11:05 < matches> And XML
+11:13 < sulix> I suspect you removed a lot of bugs with the -DQUADTREE_REMOVED. :P
+11:14 < matches> It's the bit where parts of my Bezier code have been wrong for more than a month that make me feel guilty :S
+11:14 < sulix> The GPU code was wrong in the same way.
+11:15 < sulix> Also it used to corrupt all of the memory.
+11:23 < matches> So you're not using the koch.svg file?
+11:23 < matches> That breaks for me
+11:23 < matches> Which isn't surprising considering the svg parsing code
+11:24 < sulix> I was using koch1.svg from your Lit Review
+11:25 < matches> Oh right
+11:25 < matches> koch.svg isn't actually a valid svg file :S
+11:26 < sulix> I tried it with a random, complex SVG from the internet, and segfault.
+11:27 < matches> Haha
+11:27 < matches> Yeah it works
+11:27 < matches> We can zoom in further than atril!
+11:28 < sulix> Victory!
+11:34 < matches> So I was trying to think about shading things... and stroke thickness... and all those other things in SVG...
+11:34 < sulix> Yeah, I thought about those.
+11:35 < sulix> I came to the conclusion that I should probably try to make the quadtree work first.
+11:37 < matches> Probably :P
+11:58 < sulix> btw, your computer's clock is slightly out.
+11:58 < sulix> alternatively there is a lot of time travel going on
+11:58 < sulix> (secretly, I'm hoping it's the latter)
+11:59 < sulix> (im my mind, I'm good enough to have bugfixed the SVG code before it was written)
+17:10 < matches> Yeah I removed ntpd because my boot kept stalling at it for several minutes
+17:17 < matches> The GPU Bezier renderer seems a lot more conservative about how many lines it uses
+17:18 < matches> I thought I remembered just copying the GPU algorithm for the CPU but maybe I didn't
+17:20 < matches> Oh
+17:38 < matches> Some of the shader stuff confuses me...
+17:38 < matches> Like: "pixize = vec2(pixel_w/bounds_w, 100*pixel_h/bounds_h)"
+17:39 < matches> Random factor of 100 ?
+17:39 < matches> As far as I can tell pixel_w,pixel_h is always 640,480
+17:57 < matches> Hmm
+17:57 < matches> But the window isn't 640,480
+17:57 < matches> Wait
+17:57 < matches> Is it
+17:58 < matches> Yeah
+17:58 < matches> The screen is 800 x 600
+17:58 < matches> That is only slightly confusing...
+17:58 < matches> Should I change all the 640,480 to 800,600 ...
+17:59 < matches> Or will this break things
+18:01 < matches> We are actually passing the width and height of the viewport around so I figure that should probably be used instead of 640 and 480
+18:02 < matches> Also I suspect we want just a few more lines on the beziers since they often start looking more like trapezoids
+18:04 < matches> But only if they are big to begin with
+18:05 < matches> We can probably also do a "if x1,y1 == x2,y2 just use one line"
+18:06 < matches> Or alternately actually implement lines as distinct from beziers but that's silly :P
+18:06 < matches> If I can work out how to do shading then we won't even need rectangles and circles any more
+18:06 < matches> I should probably focus on precision of things but I sort of want to be able to draw something cool first
+18:15 < matches> Oh damn merge
+19:19 < matches> So a series of curveto commands isn't just a series of individual beziers for each three points
+19:20 < matches> I guess it's time to actually read the SVG spec a bit
+19:20 < matches> Oh maybe they are cubic beziers
+19:21 < matches> I thought they were just quadratic unless you used a special command
+21:08 < matches> The order of your coefficients in the bezier geometry shader seems reversed...
+21:08 < matches> But maybe that's because I reversed it in the CPU first...
+21:08 < matches> I don't know
+21:08 < matches> I will leave it in this order and hope it doesn't break
+21:08 < matches> (I'm making the beziers cubic because it seems like a thing we want)
+21:08 < matches> And is required for SVG paths
+21:27 < matches> Hmm
+21:27 < matches> SVGs also have quadratic beziers and as much as setting (x3,y3) == (x2,y2) *almost* looks the same...
+21:29 < matches> Close enough I guess
+21:30 < matches> I don't particularly want to add seperate objects for quadratic beziers since I've only ever seen cubic ones in SVGs anyway
+21:49 < matches> http://szmoore.net/ipdf/svgshape.png
+21:49 < matches> Woo!
+21:50 < matches> I'm actually pretty excited about having a semi usable svg viewer that can zoom, if not indefinitely, a lot further than any of the open source image viewers will let you zoom :P
+21:51 < matches> Shading... that's hard
+21:51 < matches> Stroke thickness is kind of hard too...
+21:51 < matches> Blergh
+--- Day changed Thu Aug 07 2014
+21:24 < sulix> So it turns out ttf fonts were not very difficult to add at all: http://davidgow.net/stuff/ipdf-ttf.png
+21:42 < sulix> And fixed the glyphs.svg rendering: http://davidgow.net/stuff/ipdf-glyphs.png
+22:06 < sulix> So all of those Béziers make Gmpint very slow.
+22:07 < sulix> It also runs out of memory very quickly.
+22:11 < sulix> About 30 second of dragging an svg around uses ~15G of ram.
+22:13 < sulix> It takes (with Rational<Gmpint> CPU rendering) ~10 G to render the default frame of glyphs.svg
+22:18 < sulix> Okay, it just broke a computer w/ 32 GB of ram.
+22:20 < sulix> Code is pushed, btw, for your computer-wreckingly-awesome enjoyment.
+22:32 < sulix> I tried fixing Rational::ToDouble() and using GPU w/ CPU coordinate transform.
+22:32 < sulix> Still runs out of memory.
+22:33 < sulix> But it works, even if it's still a tad slow.
+22:45 < sulix> Okay, memory use is not a problem at all if we delete out GMP integers after we're finished with them.
+22:46 < sulix> (There was a TODO: to that effect)
+--- Day changed Fri Aug 08 2014
+16:11 < matches> Wait you just did the things *I* was supposed to do for this week :P
+16:11 < matches> I hope you don't want me to fix quadtrees...
+16:13 < matches> Ah sorry about the GMP
+16:14 < sulix> I gave the QuadTrees another go as well, but random half-letter-"b"s were everywhere.
+--- Day changed Mon Aug 11 2014
+10:56 < matches> Ok I think I need to throw all design principles out the window adding a keyboard handler
+10:57 < matches> I know you were keen on having a mouse handler independent of the Screen class
+10:57 < matches> But the Screen class detects the events
+10:57 < matches> It really makes sense for the event handlers to just be member functions
+10:57 < matches> Maybe virtual in the unlikely event that there are ever different types of Screen
+10:58 < matches> Probably the View should handle the events
+10:58 < matches> Then we wouldn't have this convoluted thing where View has a reference to a Screen but Screen has a pointer to a View...
+10:59 < matches> But I need to let that go and actually do useful things
+10:59 < matches> So KeyboardHandler is now a member of Screen
+10:59 < matches> Delicious spaghetti
+11:02 < sulix> I think I can bring myself to forgive you. :)
+--- Day changed Tue Aug 12 2014
+13:48 < matches> I can draw rabbit_simple.svg
+13:48 < matches> !
+13:48 < matches> Almost
+13:50 < matches> IT IS BEAUTIFUL
+13:52 < matches> Wait I think quad trees are enabled
+13:53 < matches> Nope they aren't
+13:53 < matches> Oh wel
+13:54 < matches> http://szmoore.net/ipdf/infinite-precision-document-FOX.png
+13:54 < matches> That didn't take very long
+13:55 < matches> I suspect the wierd bits in the wrong spot are because there are translations applied to things
+13:55 < matches> Because inkscape
+13:57 < matches> Hmm yeah
+13:58 < matches> I wonder why there are random straight lines between things though
+13:58 < matches> They are filled regions of the same colour and no stroke but obviously we just read the beziers and draw the outlines
+14:50 < matches> Dammit SVG
+14:50 < matches> So the y coordinate of text refers to the bottom
+14:50 < matches> The y coordinate of *everything* *else* refers to the top
+14:51 < matches> It's alright this is ipdsvg we aren't constrained by stupid standards
+14:59 < matches> Ergh somehow fonts are broken in eye of mate...
+14:59 < matches> How did I even...
+15:00 < sulix> Fonts are usually handled with y=0 being the "baseline" of characters.
+15:10 < matches> There are a few wierd things going on with straight lines
+15:11 < matches> Hmm only at the default zoom
+15:11 < matches> Horizontal lines on both cpu and gpu are kind of wobbly
+17:23 < matches> Ok I am suffering from an attack of matrix algebra
+17:23 < matches> It was bound to happen sooner or later I guess
+17:24 < matches> The spaghetti is cooking nicely
+17:26 < matches> The fact that our document is all in GL coordinates and SVGs are not is causing me way more confusion than it really should be
+17:27 < matches> All I need to do is set an initial transformation matrix then everything else should Just Work
+17:27 < matches> Of course it does help if you actually use matrices instead of Rect's
+17:29 < matches> Also I think functions that modify arguments passed by references is one of the things that tpg hates
+17:29 < matches> But there are a lot of them here
+17:29 < matches> They are so convenient!
+22:03 < matches> If I can get transforms and groups actually working properly, we can probably hack some sort of recursive thing together and use view reparenting
+22:03 < matches> Somehow
+22:05 < matches> I'm thinking putting the fox in the rabbit's eye and so on recursively would actually be pretty damn awesome
+22:05 < matches> It is easy to say these things though...
+22:06 < sulix> So, I have view reparenting "working" in the quadtree code.
+22:06 < matches> :O
+22:06 < matches> Cool
+22:06 < sulix> (The rest of the quadtree doesn't work, so the point is somewhat moot, though)
+22:06 < matches> Wait you already had that working, but you have rendering bugs
+22:06 < matches> Yeah
+22:06 < matches> :P
+22:08 < sulix> I will push that now, actually.
+--- Day changed Wed Aug 13 2014
+00:34 < matches> Yes
+00:34 < matches> I have defeate
+00:34 < matches> d
+00:34 < matches> Basic matrices
+00:36 < matches> So it is pretty ugly and inefficient but meh
+00:36 < matches> We have translate, scale and matrix
+00:37 < matches> skew will be pretty easy to add but probably useless
+00:37 < matches> rotate is a bit harder
+00:38 < matches> Also the skewing operations obviously don't work on rectangles
+00:38 < matches> Or anything that isn't defined in terms of bezier paths I guess
+00:38 < matches> But translating and scaling will
+00:40 < matches> Ok, so SVG has a "defs" thing that lets you define groups without drawing them
+00:41 < matches> And a "use" thing that lets you insert a group
+00:41 < matches> Actually element in general
+00:41 < matches> Doesn't have to be a group
+00:41 < matches> So
+00:41 < matches> I wonder if doing recursive magic with that works
+00:48 < matches> Not in normal svg viewers it would seem
+00:49 < matches> Hmm
+00:51 < matches> (eom:7883): librsvg-WARNING **: Circular SVG reference noticed, dropping
+00:51 < matches> That's just boring!
+00:52 < matches> So I think we will need some fairly major changes to our Document structure to get much more SVG stuff working
+00:53 < matches> I wonder if we actually need to store a DOM if we want that to work
+00:53 < matches> Also I thought I fixed transformations but they still break for fox-vector.svg :(
+00:58 < matches> I think "broken" will probably be the most commonly occuring word in our git commit messages
+11:05 < matches> Oooh
+11:06 < matches> svg-tests/recursive.svg is slightly recursive viwed in firefox
+16:10 < sulix> The QuadTree works again!
+16:10 < sulix> (I have finally worked out how to multiply by two, it seems...)
+16:11 < sulix> Also s/ again//
+17:23 < matches> Project complete!
+18:05 < sulix> Man, nVidia has an OpenGL extension where you can just pass the "d" attribute of SVG paths in and have it render them for you.
+18:05 < matches> Oh
+18:05 < matches> Welp
+18:07 < sulix> It's like: glPathStringNV(path, GL_PATH_FORMAT_SVG_NV, strlen(d), "M100,180, L40,10, etc...")
+18:08 < matches> Presumably you could just replace 90% of the SVG stuff with that then :S
+18:09 < sulix> It only works on nVidia hardware, though, so it's not really practical.
+18:10 < matches> I think I need to actually do the Bezier's bounding rectangles correctly
+18:10 < sulix> I was just about to add that, actually.
+18:10 < matches> But its not just (x0,y0,x3-x0,y3-y0)
+18:10 < matches> Ok
+18:10 < matches> Go ahead then
+18:10 < sulix> Nah, you have to take the x and y components separately and solve for min and max.
+18:11 < matches> Yes google is a lot faster than actually doing maths
+18:13 < matches> I can add that unless you've already written it?
+18:13 < sulix> Sure.
+18:13 < sulix> The internet seems to claim that you should use newton-raphson to find the roots of the derivatives, but I'm not really comfortable with doing that for cubic béziers,
+18:31 < matches> I just differentiated the parametric formula
+18:31 < matches> And got a quadratic
+18:31 < matches> Unfortunately there is a slight problem with Real
+18:31 < matches> Since we don't have a general "sqrt"
+18:31 * matches adds that to the growing list of "fix later"
+18:32 < matches> It doesn't compile for Rational<Gmpint> anymore anyway
+18:38 < matches> I am writing code that sjy would probably not consider elegant
+18:50 < matches> Well that totally broke everything
+18:53 < sulix> So it turns out that the view reparenting was only working by chance.
+18:55 < matches> :(
+19:20 < matches> Hmm it turns out finding the bounding box of a bezier has really annoying edge cases
+19:43 < sulix> Okay, automatic generation of new quadtree nodes "works" when zooming in.
+19:44 < sulix> It doesn't do any fancy clipping, so the actual rendering code hits precision issues, but it's still pretty cool.
+19:48 < sulix> It also get a bit buggy if you try to pan over the edges of quadtrees, as it only renders one node at a time.
+19:59 < matches> Nice
+21:14 < sulix> I have just achieved infinite precision with the quadtree!
+21:14 < sulix> Only on rectangles, only when zooming in, and only when the camera doesn't cross a quadtree boundary, but it works!
+--- Day changed Thu Aug 14 2014
+09:50 < matches> cool
+10:37 < matches> I'm beginning to suspect whoever said to use the Newton Raphson method to find Bezier bounding boxes was right
+10:43 < matches> I love how the sites I looked up said "Obviously there is a problem if a = 0 or b^2 - 4ac < 0, but we can just make sure we always pick beziers that don't cause those problems
+10:44 < matches> Ok
+10:44 < matches> I have at least got an algorithm that returns finite sized bounding boxes now
+10:45 < matches> I think it even works!
+10:45 < matches> But only on the CPU
+10:45 < matches> Presumably the GPU does something to cope with the fact that the bounding boxes were totally wrong before?
+10:53 < matches> Oh it wasn't doing anything because they were {0,0,1,1}
+10:54 < matches> I have to transform the Bezier coefficients before they are uploaded to the GPU
+10:54 < matches> Blergh
+10:55 < matches> What I've basically done is change it to be the opposite of how it was designed
+10:55 < matches> -_-
+10:56 < matches> So before, the Bezier control points were relative to some bounding rectangle but when I parsed the SVG I just made it always {0,0,1,1} so the coordinates were absolute
+10:56 < matches> Now I have changed the Bezier control points to be absolute and then calculated a bounding rectangle from them
+10:56 < matches> I can maths
+10:57 < matches> So I could make the Beziers still have the {0,0,1,1} bounds which will fix the GPU renderer without having to transform the coefficients
+10:57 < matches> And just leave this "SolveBounds" function in for actually getting the bounds
+10:58 < matches> Except SolveBounds is disgusting
+10:58 < matches> And slow
+10:58 < matches> So I could add a Bounds member variable to the Beziers
+10:58 < matches> And then we have two bounds
+10:58 < matches> I seem to have coded myself into a catch 22 "No matter what you do it is terrible" situation
+10:59 < matches> Adding a Bounds member variable to the Bezier struct sort of defeats the whole point of the "Object of Arrays" idea
+10:59 < matches> You know what
+11:00 < matches> I think the "Object of Arrays" approach has caused more problems than it solved :P
+11:02 < matches> (Probably not actually)
+11:09 < matches> Spaghetti
+11:09 < matches> I'm going to transform the coordinates before uploading to the GPU shaders
+11:09 < matches> Because I think that is the least objectionable?
+11:09 < matches> I don't know
+11:09 < matches> I still don't like any of the solutions
+11:10 < matches> But having more than one bounding rectangle definitely seems dumb
+11:10 < matches> Especially if the other is *always* {0,0,1,1}
+11:11 < matches> I hope this doesn't totally break your quad tree
+11:15 < matches> Actually looking at the quad tree it seems that is the best way to make it more likely to work
+11:21 < matches> I feel like we should use SVGMatrix more and Rect less
+11:21 < matches> But oh well
+11:29 < sulix> Ah: so the Quadtree kinda relies on the Bézier coordinates being relative to the bounding rectangle.
+11:29 < matches> Yep
+11:29 < matches> I'll do that
+11:29 < matches> It's easier to do the transform when the coordinates are uploaded to the GPU
+11:29 < matches> Although probably less efficient
+11:30 < matches> On the other hand, the CPU renderer relies on having absolute coordinates
+11:30 < matches> Two renderers
+11:30 < matches> TWICE the matrices
+11:30 < matches> TWICE the confusion
+11:31 < matches> And Rects are not really convenient because they aren't a proper transformation matrix
+11:31 < matches> I can't just multiply some Rects together
+11:31 < matches> Or calculate an inverse
+11:32 < sulix> Yeah, there are problems there.
+11:34 < matches> Hmm
+11:34 < matches> I *almost* fixed it
+11:34 < sulix> Rects are really good for the QuadTree, though.
+11:34 < matches> We should leave it as rects
+11:34 < matches> You just manually work out what it needs to be anyway
+11:35 < matches> I think the inverse of the equivelant matrix will always work as a rect
+11:35 < matches> So there are random lines missing from the beziers now
+11:35 < matches> But the ones that are there are in the right spot!
+11:36 < matches> (On the GPU)
+11:36 < sulix> So, I looked at that. I see random missing lines on Intel, not on nVidia.
+11:37 < matches> Oh were they missing before?
+11:37 < matches> Well I don't recall them being missing before
+11:37 < matches> Oh
+11:37 < matches> I know what it is
+11:38 < matches> When the bounding rectangle has width or height of zero
+11:38 < matches> Sigh
+11:38 < matches> Wait that can't be it
+11:38 < matches> Most of the missing lines aren't straight horizontal or vertical
+11:38 < matches> :S
+11:39 < sulix> I think it's just dodgy rounding on the GPU.
+11:40 < matches> I will push what I have I guess
+11:40 < matches> I have nice pretty debug rectangles (in *colour*) around the beziers when they are rendered on the CPU
+11:40 < matches> Somehow I don't think that is going to be sufficiently impressive progress in the meeting
+11:41 < sulix> Oooh... I'm looking forward to trying that.
+11:41 < sulix> I have an impressive Quadtree demo to do!
+11:41 < sulix> Assuming the bezier stuff doesn't suddenly break.
+11:41 < matches> ... it might
+11:41 < matches> Ok, I will `git stash` and then `git pull` as opposed to merging
+11:42 < matches> Yes, there are definitely not randomly missing beziers in your code
+11:44 < matches> Wait, was your quad tree working with beziers before?
+11:44 < matches> It wouldn't have been?
+11:44 < matches> All the bounds were wrong
+11:48 < matches> Ooh
+11:48 < matches> H and V
+11:48 < matches> What are they
+11:49 < sulix> Horizontal and Vertical lines
+11:49 < matches> Ah
+11:50 < sulix> The QuadTree works with beziers, but doesn't increase precision.
+11:52 < matches> Hmm, now to work out which of the 5 or 6 edge cases is breaking the Bezier bounds algorithm
+11:53 < matches> It's kind of hard to debug
+11:53 < matches> The edge cases apply seperately to the y and x directions
+11:53 < matches> So you can't tell just by looking at a curve that it is an edge case
+11:54 < matches> Unless you are a mathemagician I guess
+11:55 < matches> I don't understand
+11:55 < matches> The bounds for the beziers that disappear look right
+11:59 < matches> Maybe I'm not uploading the data correctly anymore
+12:03 < matches> Ok now it only breaks for the horizontal and vertical lines which I at least understand
+12:03 < matches> I was iterating over the object bounds and uploading the ones that had a type of BEZIER
+12:03 < matches> Oh
+12:03 < matches> Oh
+12:04 < matches> Yeah because I added a GROUP as well
+12:04 < matches> And every <path> gets a GROUP now
+12:04 < matches> So the order of indexes must be off
+12:14 < matches> Face palm
+12:14 < matches> This is why we have objects.data_indices
+12:19 < matches> I wish I'd added the SVG stuff earlier
+12:19 < matches> It makes it a lot easier to do stuff when you can mess around with actual documents
+12:42 < matches> I have pushed some stuff
+12:43 < matches> Mostly it just looks like I added a bunch of colourful rectangles to the CPU rendering
+12:43 < matches> I think I broke the Quad tree too
+12:43 < matches> Go team
+12:43 < matches> Oh and there are a bunch of not so colourful GPU rectangles
+12:43 < matches> Due to the "GROUP" object just using the outline rectangle shaders
+12:44 < matches> So part of the quad tree seems to work on the GPU but not all of it
+12:44 < matches> And none of it seems to work on the CPU?
+12:48 < matches> Also instead of rendering a slightly broken fox it now renders a segfault
+12:48 < matches> Similarly for the koch snowflake
+12:48 < matches> It's alright we can still draw Humphrey
+12:53 < matches> Oh
+12:53 < matches> It's just the quad tree that segfaults on the more complicated svgs
+13:38 < sulix> I have returned from the committee meeting, and that stupid 2/3rds majority thing has been revoked!
+13:38 < matches> Hooray!
+13:39 < matches> I should head towards University for the project meeting
+13:39 < matches> It is tempting to just stay home
+13:40 < matches> But that would probably not be wise
+13:41 < sulix> You should come.
+13:41 < sulix> I'm going to see if I can fix the Quadtree, but it looks like your changes have thoroughly broken it.
+13:41 < matches> Sorry!
+13:41 < sulix> By which I mean, it probably was only working if everything had bounds (0,0)-(1,1)
+13:41 < matches> Haha
+13:42 < matches> You can just undo my changes to demonstrate it if you want
+13:42 < matches> To the bus
+13:43 < sulix> I may yet do that...
+14:54 * sulix -> CSSE
+19:08 < matches> So shading on the CPU sort of totally breaks
+19:08 < matches> But it exists
+19:08 < matches> Progress!
+19:10 < matches> Bezier bounds are not as good as I'd hoped
+19:10 < matches> I think they only work if the end points form the bounds
+19:17 < sulix> Ah...
+19:21 < sulix> Btw, in the default "c" glyph, there are _two_ curves with bounds (0,0)-(1,1)
+19:21 < sulix> Numbers 9 and 18
+19:22 < matches> Yeah I found the wierd ebounds
+19:22 < matches> It's in the font code
+19:22 < matches> There is an AddBezierData with (0,0,1,1) instead of AddBezier (which automatically works out the bounds)
+19:22 < matches> For vlines
+19:22 < sulix> That'd do it.
+19:23 < matches> shape.svg seems to lose part of the curve now
+19:23 < matches> I've made the bezier control points relative
+19:23 < matches> Things mostly sort of work
+19:23 < matches> But the quad tree still looks fantastically broken
+19:25 < sulix> It always looks broken if you pan around or zoom out: it's my ugly baby.
+19:28 < matches> http://szmoore.net/ipdf/brokenbeziers.png
+19:28 < matches> To be fair the beziers are actually fine
+19:28 < matches> It's just the bounding rectangles that are broken
+19:28 < matches> Also shading should probably not be turned on unless it is actually a closed path
+19:29 < sulix> Hmm...
+19:29 < matches> Wait
+19:29 < matches> The beziers are rendering fine
+19:29 < matches> But the bounding rectangles are wrong
+19:29 < matches> Does this mean
+19:29 < matches> If I *fix* the bounding rectangles
+19:29 < matches> It will break something
+19:29 < matches> :-(
+19:29 * matches forges ahead nevertheless
+19:30 < matches> It does look suspiciously like it is only ever using P0 and P3 for the bounds
+19:30 < matches> Despite all that horrible solving for the turning points
+19:31 < sulix> Yeah.
+19:31 < matches> Oh
+19:32 < matches> I suspect if I fix this it will totally break the absolute to relative bezier transform then
+19:35 < matches> The file for those beziers is kind of interesting
+19:35 < matches> inkscape has used absolute commands for all except one of the beziers
+19:35 < matches> Why?
+19:35 < matches> The first one was copied and pasted with the control points moved
+19:35 < matches> Also for some reason random "translate" applied to the whole group
+19:36 < matches> It might make some sense if it caused the coordinates of the actual paths to come out as integers maybe
+19:36 < matches> But they don't
+19:37 < matches> There is translate and then the initial "moveto" is not 0,0
+19:37 < matches> I guess we shouldn't be trusting an svg editor that segfaults if you try recursion anyway
+19:59 < matches> Ok, high school maths:1, 5th year science/engineering student:0
+20:15 < matches> Also my amazingly clever shading algorithm has
+20:15 < matches> ...
+20:15 < matches> issues
+20:15 < matches> When the paths are not in the view
+20:16 < sulix> Ah...
+20:18 < matches> In fact it has many issues in many cases
+20:27 < matches> Hmm
+20:27 < matches> I wonder if this is what causes problems with evince/atril
+20:27 < matches> Ok not this
+20:28 < matches> I mean, if they use a similarly terrible except actually working shading algorithm
+20:28 < matches> And just draw everything to a really big texture so they can use it
+20:28 < matches> As opposed to clipping things
+20:28 < matches> That seems a little unbelievable though
+20:29 < matches> Surely that would crash long before you even got to >1600%
+20:30 < matches> I suppose what I should really do is look up some papers on shading
+20:30 < matches> Blergh
+20:35 < matches> Things are pushed
+20:37 < matches> Ah crap
+20:38 < matches> Things will be pushed in 8 hours according to my clock
+20:38 < matches> Just don't do anything until after 4am tomorrow and everything will be in the right order
+20:38 < matches> :P
+20:39 < sulix> That shading is _amazing_
+20:40 < matches> Try replacing the colour with rand()%255 for even more amazingness
+20:40 < sulix> If you zoom in _just_ the right amount, all hell breaks loose. I love it!
+20:40 < matches> Haha
+20:40 < sulix> Slowly panning across it is also magical!
+20:41 < matches> Try it on rabbit_simple.svg
+20:42 < sulix> I think Humphrey might have come down with a case of stripey binary myxomatosis.
+20:43 < matches> So I will have to think about shading a bit more :P
+20:43 * sulix braves the unholy combination of shading and quadtree.
+20:43 < matches> Oh I didn't try that
+20:44 < sulix> It actually doesn't look any different.
+20:44 < sulix> I think the quadtree only breaks w/ the GPU.
+20:44 < matches> Yes
+20:45 < matches> You lose the debug message if the node # > 9 it seems too
+20:46 < matches> At least the quad tree works on the CPU
+20:46 < matches> But why doesn't it work on the GPU they are now using the same bounds
+20:47 < matches> So should I prepare a report for Tim?
+20:47 < matches> Progress Report: Arbitrary precision numbers are unsurprisingly, totally infeasible
+20:47 < matches> Therefore, we implemented random bits of SVG
+20:47 < matches> Figure 1: A totally broken shading algorithm
+20:48 < sulix> You should include this image of the quadtree: http://davidgow.net/stuff/ipdf-humphreys-ghost-face.png
+20:48 < matches> Yes
+20:48 < matches> I wonder if since we're allegedly engineers we should document what bugs go with what images
+20:48 < matches> Hmmm
+20:49 < sulix> That's why I name the screenshots like that, I know this goes with the "Humphrey's Ghost Face" bug.
+20:49 < matches> Haha
+20:49 < matches> So we have the svg-test images
+20:50 < matches> Would it be worth while to have a commit script that automatically drew them and did screnshots
+20:50 < matches> It might be tricky though because you have to test panning and zooming and things
+20:50 < sulix> Yeah... perhaps videos?
+20:51 < matches> We'd need to be able to control the view automatically
+20:51 < matches> Which is actually required for that list of things in the proposal we are supposed to do anyway
+20:52 < sulix> I think we'll want that feature at some point anyway for doing proper performance tests
+20:54 < matches> I kind of want some sort of debug overlay for things like the bounding boxes too
+20:54 < sulix> Hmmm... the bounds look right: http://davidgow.net/stuff/ipdf-humphrey-bounds-ahead.png
+20:54 < matches> And a menu system
+20:54 < matches> And the ability to "insert SVG here"
+20:54 < matches> And open a file browser
+20:54 < matches> And...
+20:54 < matches> And...
+20:54 < matches> Yeah
+20:54 < sulix> I've been seriously considering doing a menu system.
+20:54 < matches> Too bad christmas is after the thesis is due
+20:54 < matches> Do it!
+20:55 < matches> We're running out of mouse buttons to toggle things :P
+20:55 < matches> Are there any SDL based menu systems that we can use easily?
+20:55 < sulix> There are a couple of OpenGL-y ones that might work.
+20:56 < matches> Let's not port the project from SDL -> FreeGlut
+20:56 < sulix> No.
+20:56 < sulix> Let's not.
+20:57 < sulix> (I'm looking for an SDL/OpenGL menu system so that I can replace FreeGLUT in the Graphics project(
+20:57 < matches> Could we use Qt or is that overkill?
+20:57 < sulix> I suspect it's probably overkill.
+20:59 < sulix> I've got a couple of old GUI libraries for SDL/OpenGL I wrote in high school I could dig up as a last resort.
+20:59 < matches> ... I have seen your high school code
+20:59 < matches> :P
+20:59 < sulix> (I think one of them uses a tiny bit of boost, though, so I'd rather avoid it)
+21:03 < matches> I kind of want to look at Qt at some point
+21:03 < matches> Maybe if we have the menu in a seperate window...
+21:03 < matches> Then we need threads...
+21:03 < matches> Then we have two problems...
+21:09 < matches> All the links to SDL libraries are broken
+21:34 < sulix> I'm not sure what changed, but now ipdf crashes my OpenGL debugger.
+21:42 < sulix> The QuadTree/GPU code works again!
+21:42 < sulix> Somehow the bug I fixed last night reappeared, but I've added the needed *2s back in.
+--- Day changed Fri Aug 15 2014
+08:43 < matches> So it seems to work well but things still go wierd on the GPU
+08:44 < matches> I'm in Quadtree node 32 looking at the tip of Humphrey's eyebrow
+08:44 < matches> The bottom line moves normally
+08:44 < matches> Vertically only sorry
+08:44 < matches> It doesn't move horizontally
+08:44 < matches> The top line stays still and every so often jumps to a new (wrong) position
+08:45 < matches> On the CPU it appears fine though
+08:45 < matches> Although on the CPU it doesn't show the "Current View QuadTree Node: 32"
+08:46 < matches> Hrm, I should add a 2d view of a car to the svg-tests
+08:47 < matches> Then I can be like "IT IS RELEVANT TO MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BECAUSE BEZIERS"
+08:47 < matches> In the conference/thesis offense
+08:48 < matches> My concern is actually more how I'm going to present the arbitrary precision number representations because they don't even work
+08:49 < matches> Well I should probably try Gmp rationals and Gmp floats before totally giving up I guess
+08:49 < matches> And also those p-adic things
+08:50 < matches> I never looked them up
+--- Day changed Sun Aug 17 2014
+14:38 < matches> Hey Qt has a lot of stuff in it
+14:38 < matches> They have their own iostreams that seem identical to std::iostream
+14:39 < matches> It's kind of cool I guess except there are "Qs" everywhere
+14:41 < matches> Ok we need a window icon
+14:41 < matches> This is vital
+15:54 < sulix> I've got SDL2 window icon setting code if you want it: https://github.com/sulix/omnispeak/blob/master/src/icon.c#L555
+16:04 < matches> Cool
+16:39 < matches> I'm bringing in spaghetti
+16:39 < matches> I mean Qt
+16:40 < matches> In theory this means the Debug functions should have a mutex if we want to debug things in the Qt stuff
+16:40 < matches> But in practice screw it
+16:40 < matches> What could go wrong?
+16:41 < matches> (Don't worry, I have a CONTROLPANEL_DISABLED define)
+16:42 < matches> This View/Document/Screen thing could probably be tidied up a lot
+16:42 < matches> But effort
+16:42 < matches> I think I'll just give ControlPanel direct access to document, screen and view
+16:42 < matches> Currently everything has to go through view
+16:43 < matches> Which would make more sense if some of screen was in view maybe
+16:43 < matches> Bah screw design
+16:51 < matches> So now we have 4 main classes!
+16:51 < matches> 4 x the fun!
+17:29 < matches> Bargh Qt needs its own version of make
+17:29 < matches> That's stupid
+21:09 < matches> So
+21:10 < matches> I have a mysterious LMS deadline that suddenly appeared
+21:10 < matches> "Progres Report"
+21:10 < matches> Description
+21:10 < matches> "asadf"
+21:10 < matches> Due
+21:10 < matches> 19th August, 11:01PM
+21:10 < matches> What
+21:14 < sulix> Oh dear.
+21:15 < matches> I have sent an email
+21:15 < matches> I hope that's not the conference abstract
+21:15 < matches> I also really hope we're allowed to use our own computer and things in the conference
+21:16 < matches> Also I really hope that if I can use my own computer it doesn't decide to shit itself anyway just to spite me
+--- Day changed Mon Aug 18 2014
+17:06 < matches> Good news and bad news!
+17:07 < matches> The kerning now appears to kern in the right direction
+17:07 < matches> But this means "BleedingCowboys.ttf" works
+20:30 < sulix> It's a pain to look up clipping of beziers, because there's a separate technique for doing something else called "bézier clipping"
+20:40 < matches> Baha
+20:41 < matches> I'm basically just procrastinating with Qt
+20:41 < matches> I mean
+20:41 < matches> Doing *awesome* things with Qt
+20:48 < sulix> I am looking with considerable envy at SolveQuadratic().
+20:49 < sulix> SolveCubic() will get very ugly.
+20:49 < sulix> Assuming I don't just sample the cubic at 100 points and look for roots.
+20:49 < matches> Haha
+20:49 < matches> Newton Raphson?
+20:50 < sulix> Very tempting.
+20:50 < matches> Then you can solve any bezier!
+20:50 < matches> Then we can put in Quintics!
+20:50 < sulix> Solving cubics exactly is not fun.
+20:50 < sulix> Dear god no.
+20:50 < matches> Imagine how many loops a quintic could have...
+20:51 * sulix cries quietly in the corner.
+20:53 < matches> So I'm calling AddText with sane values and nothing is happening :(
+20:56 < sulix> With or without quadtree?
+20:56 < sulix> With quadtree, everything is broken if you try adding things.
+20:56 < sulix> Because they won't be added to a node.
+20:57 < matches> No quad trees I think
+20:57 < matches> Yeah no quad tree
+21:00 < matches> Wait I think we need to rebuild the buffers or something
+21:07 < matches> Ah, ForceRenderDirty()
+21:14 < matches> I don't think the scale of our text is quite right?
+21:14 < sulix> Well, the scale of everything is wrong, but it's entirely possible that the text is _extra wrong_
+21:16 < sulix> In theory, the "scale" input to addText is the "height" of a character.
+21:19 < matches> Mmm
+21:19 < matches> I'm trying to add text relative to the current view
+21:19 < matches> But it isn't consistent
+21:19 < matches> When I go to a different view it is definitely not adding it in the same relative place
+21:20 < matches> The scale and positions aren't *already* relative are they?
+21:22 < sulix> Not to the view...
+21:24 < matches> What are they relative to?
+21:24 < matches> Anyway instead of fixing that bug I'm adding more
+21:25 < sulix> Umm... The bounding box maybe?
+21:25 * sulix investigates.
+21:26 < sulix> Scale and position should (I think) be normal, document coordinates.
+21:26 < matches> Odd
+21:26 < matches> Oh well
+21:26 < matches> Having Qt is totally worth it by the way
+21:27 < matches> Although it is still slightly embarrassing that it has its own SVG parser
+21:27 < matches> Ours is better!
+21:27 < matches> It has Reals everywhere!
+21:27 < matches> Except where it constructs Real from floats...
+21:27 < matches> And converts them to floats...
+21:28 < sulix> Thesis title should be "Keepin' it real: Staying afloat on the sea of document precision"
+21:31 < matches> Bahaha
+21:31 < matches> That is brilliant
+21:32 < matches> The Qt stuff is never deleting anything
+21:32 < matches> I suppose I should fix that at some point
+21:33 < matches> So basically it is a state machine and you use the menu to change the state
+21:33 < matches> Pressing OK does something depending on the state
+21:34 < matches> And there is a single text edit you can type stuff into
+21:34 < matches> In theory it can hide/show different widgets depending on the state
+21:34 < matches> I feel like I should add a "Generate Thesis Title" widget now...
+21:35 < matches> Also I can sort of see the appeal of lambdas for GUI programming now
+21:35 < matches> But I have a feeling they would totally break Qt anyway
+21:49 < matches> ...
+21:49 < matches> Ok sometimes the text gets added upside down...
+21:49 * sulix disclaims any and all responsibility for that.
+21:51 < matches> Yes!
+21:51 < matches> I finally did that thing I was saying I'd do for like 3 weeks
+21:51 < matches> Zoom in to floating point limit
+21:51 < matches> Add SVG
+21:51 < matches> Watch it explode!
+21:52 < sulix> Oooh...
+21:52 < matches> It is glorious
+21:54 < matches> We need to be a bit careful with thread safety in qt
+21:55 < matches> Really we should be able to request that the qt thread call UpdateAll itself
+21:55 < matches> Rather than calling it directly from the viewer thread
+21:55 < matches> But I'm not sure how that's done
+21:55 < matches> There's all this stuff about "Cross thread signals" on the internet
+21:56 < matches> It seems you can hide/show things but not much else
+22:47 < matches> Bah you pushed things!
+22:55 * sulix proclaims the new features as excellent and promptly goes to bed.
+--- Day changed Tue Aug 19 2014
+18:08 < matches> My conference is in the week starting 13th October
+18:08 < matches> Is Tim back then?
+18:08 < matches> "your supervisor will be invited to attend and mark your presentation"
+18:09 < matches> So if he can't go... I don't get a mark?
+18:12 < matches> It sounds suspiciously like they are going to get everyone's supervisors to mark them and then just scale everyone :S
+18:13 < matches> Surely at least one other person is going to read the final report...
+18:13 < matches> I've heard bad things about the engineering scaling system
+18:14 < matches> Your mark becomes inversely proportional to how well your supervisor's students did the previous year or something like that
+18:15 < matches> Anyway, two months left to accomplish something!
+20:05 < sulix> Worked out why the font bounds were weird.
+20:06 < sulix> AddText takes (msg, scale, x, y) not (msg, x, y, scale), so the coordinates were all bunk.
+20:09 < sulix> Fonts looks _amazing_ with floating pt errors, too.
+20:09 < sulix> http://davidgow.net/stuff/ipdf-i-think-you-mean-comic-fail.png
+20:29 < sulix> The Art of Computer Programming briefly mentions the Stern-Brocot tree, btw.
+20:29 < sulix> I can't see it being really useful, though.
+21:06 < sulix> My difficulty clipping bézier paths may be because it is actually impossible.
+21:06 < sulix> I think I've just found a paper saying that it is only possible for béziers which happen to be straight lines.
+22:55 < sulix> Never mind, it is possible, it's just very nasty.
+23:15 < sulix> Also C++14, because we need more lambdas: https://isocpp.org/blog/2014/08/we-have-cpp14
git.ucc.asn.au / ipdf / documents.git / blobdiff
UCC git Repository :: git.ucc.asn.au