Netsurf for 68k amigas, css capable web brower

[unusedunused]

Yes, its too no full browser but now that you begin and manage to compile it, i like to see how fast it is ;-)

My most time consuming problem is to get something compilable.Find a problem in a compilable program and fix is much easier for me and need not much time.i spend not much time on programming.

currently i cant compile your source, but because of your near complete files its more easy.

You get big progress.

And i think to have something workable is not much work.most you have done.i think some mui classes need deactivate, but to get it working so that a name can in and surf should not be need much MUI4 features.and if this later need can add to zune.

Problem now is that newcreateproc need a special MOS command, but i think this need not add, because multithread seem in the OS4 Version too not done.OWB too use not multithread

with multithreaded define off its more easy to get it working first.

i am postive suprised about netsurf.

the good news is, it most use no C++, and compile time is fast, also when do a full compile.
And thats most important to me.OWB need more than 30 sec to find out what file is changed, and wait such a long time, make no fun.

when a header file is changed in OWB, then a compile to 50% need over 20 minutes also on my fast AMD64 3000+ (1,8 GHZ real clock)on crosscompilers and 1 gigabyte ram.make too no fun.

btw i like to see a video how OWB compile on a OS4 system or MOS system, i cant believe that this is usable fast, and i think OWB is develop on a more core X86 system with over 3 GHZ. ;-)

I wonder if it is not possible to add with few work a better than nothing java script.when i look on pages, i guess 99% need to be usable only few simple commands.

aweb have a java script, and but miss more, so it seem get Java working not too hard,  so wy should not get working a java script that fit 99% the need to be usefull in short time ?

the OS4 Version with reaction i dont like, because reaction is far behind MUI in any case.

it should be possible to have a MUI class from the browser, a GUI can be much more easy code in amiblitz at least for me, and also a MUI class can use in many other programs, not sure if MOS or OS4 GUI is fully working in all features, or some features have no GUI elements on MOS or OS4 Version but on GTK Version.

[unusedunused]

>It's the same as with OWB under winuae.
>Download AmiTCP from aminet. Copy all install files to a drawer on >your harddisk and assign amitcp: to this drawer.
>Then it will work.

yes, netsurf use too ixnet.library.but its possible to use bsdsocket later, when libcurl is fix.

netsurf work too with libcurl for bsdsocket, but give on my winuae system not more speed and some enforcer hits.

on the left below side, when the mouse is not over a link, the time is show a page is load.

what we need to know are there delay times on classic or is it maybe a winuae only socket problem.or work netsurf on this pages also on other system extrem slow.

can somebody please post the time value a page rebuild need show in left corner when click on netsurf_web_site link.

my winuae amd64 3000+ need for this 1,5 -1,6 sec.
when i disable the jit, then i get same CPU mips as a 68040 25.
then time take 6,4 sec.

also try press on reload look if time differ much.i get time from 8,2 to 6,4 sec.

now go back to start site and click on wikipedia.with JIT site is show in 3,6 sec.

without JIT, there is about 18 sec show
0.1sec load 0.00 kb from 20 kb.on some pages i notice how the time increase.but not here, then after 22 sec teh page is show.

i am not sure if there are hangs and internet access take unecessary delay.the delay and hang problem i have on OWB 68k too.but OWB show no page load time.

then the last test, click on the reuters link.
this is also with JIT on my system a unusable page.it load 5 sec, thats ok, but seem load more images after page is load and show.

so i cant scroll (with cursore keys press very often nice) and get always this 5 sec hangs when a new image is load.and it load again and again images.

does this happen on other Systems too ?
also reports from MOS or OS4 systems are intresting, what time values show here.

and after tests its always good when you reboot, this is only a quick sdl port and should show what netsurf can

the version for MOS and source can Artur compile, but it dont work, and wait.
Now we get the idea to try out with the mos sources the TARGET=framebuffer for SDL.this show only a black screen.

but netsurf work well with the checked out sources from netsurf homepage and thats the testversion here.

but the future(if it make sense to port newtsurf complete)is to get the MOS version working but first need find out wy the framebuffer not work with MOS sources, and use only most important MUI code and classes.

[unusedunused]

to load netsurf_web_site my 060/50 setup needs 4.9 s, this is on a clean first attempt, but if you have surfed around and then tried the link first the actual time can vary around 5-6sec. same for reload (around 5sek)

Great, then your system and netsurf is faster as my OWB 68k on winuae.it need with jit 6 sec and OWB 68k do not antialias.without JIT this page need 92 sec.this page use no Java so can good compare.
 
Text look ugly on OWB 68k but netsurf have nice antialiased text.this page contain many text.

A build without freetype and use internal netsurf font system give speedup, because do no antialias, but it do not work, because no text is show.i dont know wy it not work.

also gcc add for antializing font bitfield operations, not shure how freetype is compiled, but -mnobitfield option need set for faster speed

does somebody know how can easy disable antialiasing in freetype so Artur can build a antialias free version too ?

the hubbub HTML engine used by this netsurf build print out also many lines to console, or when start from wb in nil.but some unneeded code is execute, here its also possible that it work faster.

The reuters page can be work ok, if the stop button work correct(blue x).but when i get some time the mouse pointer can move, and i have luck so i can click on it, it do not help, page load show load show.but when i scroll it seem all elements are here.

netsurf do very often memallocs.this is see because when run memtracker as wipeout give huge slowdown(4*), also on my fast winuae with 800 megabyte memtransfer rate.on amiga apps there is not such slowdown see

so better for tests on a classic not use wipeout or other memtracker

>btw:i dont understand why you care for mos so much out of the >sudden:P there is mos native port worked on by itix afaik, mos is >surely better off with that. not that you sholdnt join the forces >though.

yes and so i like to get 1 sourcetree.itix is very friendly, he help Artur and have some code in his source add that make it easier to work on OS3.x and MOS1.4.He have written in netsurf source, there seem working together possible.

but because we was not sure what problem is we want see netsurf running to see libcurl libxml libhubbub and the many other libs run well.and now can see the browser work and the way to a full browsers is GUI code only.

the sdl version you see have only very few elements.

[unusedunused]

there are still bugs to iron out. colors. text input. rendering (check http://www.bahn.de). not loading pages. i do not know how much of this is general fault of current netsurf distribution. replacing sdl with native functions might bring some speedup but i dont take it for granted. gui would be nice too, of course.

oh yes, the bahn.de show wrong.i deactivate on my Internet explorer always java script and active x.its my no Java browser ;-)

The http://www.bahn.de page work without java script ok(village name completion is not done but on OWb 68k too no village completion), later when you add start and destination, is show a message activate java script or click here.when click on here, then all work too without java script.

what happen on this page with a netsurf OS4 or MOS Version ?
that the colors are wrong is because endian problems.

its really bad that OWB is program in C++.i thinks thats main reason that it is so slow and compile time is so extrem long.

and i need also much longer to find Bugs in a C++ source than in a fast c source.because when singlestep in debugger c++ source need lots more instruction for same functions

[unusedunused]

@bernd_afa & @__artur:


How difficult is it to make a MUI/Zune version, instead of SDL  ??

cant say, as i told, the MUI version with MOS source can compile with MUI3.8 headers, so there seem no MUI4 parts in.but it still not work.

now must begin examine how netsurf work and what go wrong wy MUI sources not work.the good news is, it can compare in debugger with the working sdl version.

the bad thing is, i never use, and must learn from beginning how MUI work.
I dont like GUI without GUI editor.in the world outside amiga there are GUI editors used, (called RAD Tools rapid application development)

So i get the idea to test the usability of the gtk to zune wrapper and try a gtk netsurf compile.this help also to get more Unix programs easier port.

Help is welcome.if that work, then i like to have the glade GUI Editor, do somebody know a more easy portable GUI Editor ?

http://glade.gnome.org/

and at end of all, i also want that there can GUI for amiblitz programs build by using libglade

stormwizard i use for my programs, can easy build with editor, but they look not nice, MUI have no GUI Editor so i see the modernst solution to use GTK MUI wrapper and a GTK GUI Editor

[unusedunused]

I can't believe it. This netsurf also uses ixemul?

Artur: just don't use ixemul, please (add -noixemul at compilation and link). You're just asking for deep trouble, otherwise.

Bernd: I really question your development/porting advices.

@fab

with libnix netsurf crashes immidiate test with the MOS source in that func in gui_init.

void gui_init(int argc, char** argv)
{

....
messages_load(lang); // check locale language and read appropriate file

but forget to test with framebuffer.maybe Artur can compile  and see if it work.

The MOS libnix source is not released.
maybe you release libnix source from MOS, then i compile that and look if it work better.

and btw.the netsurf sdl port use only 1 thread so it should not be critical.

[unusedunused]

One of the basic rules of benchmarking anything is to remove the uncertainty or your results will be totally useless. Everyone and their cousin knows this...

it count not the exact time, because in real world internet load time can differ around 1-2 sec on fast server(as the netsurf and other sites i name are.)

Everybody knows that when a page on a amiga/ winbrowser can load in 1-2 sec and OWB need for this 90sec(without java script), then the influence of internet acess is about 1-2% at overall time, or something is bad in code.

and only this value is usefull how much slower it is in compare to aweb or OWB and if it is usefull

>Have you actually figured out why it crashes? Surely developer of >your skill is able to do this?

i have no time and fun to do so, Artur build first libnix and ixemul version too that crash.I look on both, but soon i notice libnix crash earlier.

When i port a Unix program i choose always the best solution.and this is not use libnix and add the missing functions, this is use a bsd kernel on amiga os, (ixemul)

>After that, the very first move is to get rid of ixemul usage. It just >will not work reliably with AmigaOS code.

and wy not ?

you cant compare MOS ixemul with 68k ixemul.
MOS ixemul have 2 very bad bugs, that make it very unstable, i find and fix that.i can tell you what places make problems.

when you use pngcrush and a picture that ami_stuff send me, and the MOS largeread code is enable, then there is extrem slowdown (more than 10*).it happen only on 1 picture.i deactivate that(ixmeul V48 have this code not) and all work ok

#if LARGEREADS
   r = fp->_r;
   /* TODO: should limit to specific buffering modes? - Piru */
   if (resid >= r + fp->_bf._size) {

      /* empty current buffer first, if a

--------------------

then next is,

in __write.c last MOS source have disable  IXTTY_RAW.
line in V48 was this.

#define TTY_NLCR_ENABLE (IXTTY_RAW |  IXTTY_OPOST | IXTTY_ONLCR)

when do a fh = open(audio:xxxxxxx) and do write(fh,buf,len)

give crap audio data hear on ahi.

use the V48 code fix that.

also i get now information wy ixemul V48 cant work on MOS even if MOS is called that it can execute 68k software.

its due to emulation bug.yes i call it a Bug, because when the AOS supervisor call is not support by 68k then MOS should nicely stop the program and tell supervisor is not support on 68k.

here is log output i get from a user and symbolinfo is in ixemul in.Here you can verify yourself hits come from supervsior if you dont believe that.

-> mlnet Hunk 1 Offset 0x000d0fe8

PPCStackFrame History:
StackFrame[ 0].LR-> Address 0x25660c70 -> mlnet Hunk 1 Offset 0x000c46d0
StackFrame[ 1].LR-> Address 0x25661860 -> mlnet Hunk 1 Offset 0x000c52c0
StackFrame[ 2].LR-> Address 0x2566d5bc -> mlnet Hunk 1 Offset 0x000d101c
StackFrame[ 3].LR-> Address 0x25668efc -> mlnet Hunk 1 Offset 0x000cc95c
StackFrame[ 4].LR-> Address 0x25668f50 -> mlnet Hunk 1 Offset 0x000cc9b0
StackFrame[ 5].LR-> Address 0x2565c2dc -> mlnet Hunk 1 Offset 0x000bfd3c
StackFrame[ 6].LR-> Address 0x2565c3e0 -> mlnet Hunk 1 Offset 0x000bfe40
StackFrame[ 7].LR-> Address 0x22f0bd58 -> MOSSYS:LIBS/ixemul.library Hunk 1 Offset 0x000088f0
StackFrame[ 8].LR-> Address 0x22f156b8 -> MOSSYS:LIBS/ixemul.library Hunk 1 Offset 0x00012250
StackFrame[ 9].LR-> Address 0x22f0bc1c -> MOSSYS:LIBS/ixemul.library Hunk 1 Offset 0x000087b4
StackFrame[10].LR-> Address 0x10121970 -> Module Hunk 0 Offset 0x00021970
StackFrame[11].LR-> Address 0xdeadfee1 **Not Valid**


MOS ixemul use that code and i guess its a bad hack and can break compatibility, when just set sr to 0 instead of getting the correct value.

#ifdef NATIVE_MORPHOS
  sr = 0;
#else
/*#ifdef MORPHOS
  if (has_morphos)
    sr = 0;
  else
#endif*/
    {
      asm volatile (" \n\
   movel a5,a0 \n\
   lea   Lget_sr,a5 \n\
   movel 4:w,a6 \n\
   jsr   a6@(-0x1e) \n\
   movel a1,%0 \n\
   bra   Lskip \n\
    Lget_sr: \n\
   movew sp@,a1        | get sr register from the calling function \n\
   rte \n\
    Lskip: \n\
   movel a0,a5 \n\
       " : "=g" (sr) : : "a0", "a1", "a6");
    }
#endif


I change ixemul now on two places to use AOS command.setsr.

important is that use gcc inline LPT stubs to not change flags on call
 
  sr=SetSR(0,0);

and some tests show this place make no problems.ixemul V61.2 contain now no supervisor calls.

now problem when run under MOS is ixpipe.the MOS version have add code and fake a wbstartupmessage, because MOS ixemul want read on ixpipe-handler wbstartupmessage.

fake a message i think is a unclean solution and i dont want 2 diffrent ixpipes to test more easy with V48 and V50 and above.

/* pr_CLI is NULL since we are a handler, so ix_open will expect a wb message. Fake one. */
  port.mp_Flags = PA_IGNORE;
  NEWLIST(&port.mp_MsgList);
  msg.sm_Message.mn_ReplyPort = &port;
  msg.sm_Process = &me->pr_MsgPort;
  msg.sm_NumArgs = 0;
  msg.sm_ToolWindow = NULL;
  msg.sm_ArgList = 0;
  PutMsg(&me->pr_MsgPort, &msg.sm_Message);

  ixbase = (APTR)OpenLibrary ("ixemul.library", NEEDED_IX_VERSION);

------

so new ixemul version need also correct ixpipe 68k for now.
more progress reports i dont get, but MOS OS4 is promotet to have a 68k emul and so it should execute 68k code and nothing else is ixemul.

[unusedunused]

Arent there working mui gui builders?
Wasn't there one called MUIBuilder?

yes but this are too old and not furtherdevelop and add too code in programs

i think it btw not usefull that a GUI is in program code.it should be loadable so when change something in GUI the program need not new compile.a large GUI compile need lot time.

on other systems there are gui editors and change GUI data need no recompile.

storm wizard offer this modern features too on amiga since long time, but sad, that it is not furtherdevelop

[unusedunused]

Yes I can. I've actually developed ixemul for years. I know the internals better than most. I can say for a fact that ixemul and AmigaOS code do not mix. Nothing I've seen from you has changed this fact, either.

yes you have develop ixemul for years, but what you have done is unclear.
The code in ixemul for MOS have code to build also a amigaos 68k versions.there are lots of ifdef morphos in.for example see in file uname.c

#if defined(__MORPHOS__)
static char sysname[] = "MorphOS";
#else
static char sysname[] = "AmigaOS";
#endif

but at end of all, the amiga os build from MOS source do not work with many programs on 68k.

So when you say you have done of ixemul MOS for years and not only do some few small fixes and test only with the few programs run on MOS or if one of the the few users report a Bug on MOS , i cant believe that you understand ixemul well, because the amiga os build run very bad, when do a simple compile. your current sourcetree with changelog is not visible for all, so cant see what you have done and what not.

>Yet you have time to give bad advice and talk smack? How nice of >you. You know it would be much more constructive to actually >locate the bug and fix/workaround it rather than talk bull manure >about ixemul and libnix.

yes i know that, but the MOS extension libnix source is not release for all as the old source, seem another weapon of red versus blue war.
I think MOS libnix source have this fix.

and i dont want have something to do with that stupid amiga PPC guy fanatic, that every side must reinvite the wheel again and no working together is possible.

this bad behaviour i dislike and i think was the main reason wy most of the millions amiga users are gone, and one good side of it, is that i never get the idea to buy such a PPC system, not that they use my money to build a cannon in the red versus blue war.I dont want support low quality system that want force users to buy the system with unclean methods.

and what some PPC OS devs say about ixemul is unclean.

So bring an argument wy it is impossible that ixemul run with amiga funcs ?

I like perfect systems and if its not perfect, i like when i can fix it to be perfect.

so if i need something fix allone i do that on the best solution that is here.and thats ixemul for 68k.

>I guess you missed this before so I shall repeat it:

as i told, eveybody can check with a fast windows PC and a fast windows browser(safari firefox) how fast it can be on his internet connect.and when he use amiga software and do the same test 5-10 times again then he get a average value and can say around 50% accurate how fast amiga browsers in compare to firefox etc are.

[unusedunused]

on the other hand the current version renders correctly quite complex websites, which 68k port is not able to do yet.

can you tell me what pages OS4 netsurf render correct and 68k not ?

the netsurf build use the source from saterday, so it seem newer than MOS or OS4 build.

i see, in older netsurf use of new hubbub html parser was optional.

maybe on OS4 is used not hubbub, and when i report the site, netsurf hubbub can fix.

i dont believe that a wrong display website depend on sdl port or not.

the http://www.bahn.de is same wrong on OS4 ?

@Piru

>You can get better results by removing as much variables as you can.

yes of course everbody know that, but its good enough to get a quick overview about speed.for example on my winuae when i start netsurf 10* and for pageload measure  6 sec without JIT

now i start OWB several times and it take more than 90 sec without JIT.when i activate JIT, page is load always in 1,5 sec in netsurf

what do you think, is the inet connection a big error problem  ?.the rendering because of slow CPU have lots of % in overall performance.

and btw, i have some time ago test with a cache proxy (set env var in libcurl)and i notice with that proxy not faster page load.

and i think not that users now for test install a proxy.We can be happy to get any value.

you see from OS4/MOS side no value is come or what happen on reuters page, so i guess there is same problem.

>libnix is not released because it isn't open source.

Yes i see, there is no need to release the sources, because its no GPL.everybody can use it without releasing source.

how many % have MOS enhance in this libnix source ?
i think its a thing of fair play to make also availible what you get for free, when you use 20% of this code.since Genesi build no PPC Hardware or something other there is also no fight for bigger market possible.MOS is a retro system without new Hardware, wy do not share sources and have fun on amiga without much costs, and the fight for more users or bashing again features that the loved OS not have end  ?

I think you never test ixemul V61 on UAE and notice yourself, it run stable enough and far better than MOS native Version.

I for myself have test MOS, and i notice that MOS ixemul is not so compatible, and it stand also on MOS ixemul readme.

btw: MOS use too much AROS source, is since MOS2.x release some code give back to AROS ?.

here is libnix licence.

"""""
This package is public domain. That means that you can copy, use and modify it
without any problems and that you can get it for free. If you actually
paid for getting it this is completely your fault - I didn't see a cent
of that money. It also means that I cannot be made responsible for any damage
resulting out of the use of it - you simply shouldn't trust anything you didn't
pay for :-).
""""

[unusedunused]

Now there's you problem: It was never intended to. You asked for the MorphOS ixemul source. This is what you got.

Yes of course but when the MOS source contain so many ifdefs morphos and 68k asm code, so it seem it should run on amiga OS.

you never answer my question i ask severla times.

Have you really do much work and add this #ifdef morphos or have you only done some small fixes during last years ?

[unusedunused]

i have already reported it to you yesterday by mail. the problem looks the same. it is not a sdl issue.

yes i know and also you report that reuters page after some time do system crash on OS4 right ?

from my SDL Version tests netsurf dont crash system, but have the problems with some pages.i stress netsurf with reuter page showing go eating, after 20 minutes come back and it still want reload page.no crash see.


So i think ixemul work good enough.but its of course also intresting how performance is with libnix if it can run easy on it.

i see you have report the bahn problem chris in amigans Forum, so i need not report this on netsurf page.

so i guess this freeze problems come from the OS4 addons and its not netsurf fault.

intresting is now to know, if the reuter page on MOS do too freezes system.

[unusedunused]

Despite all the arguments previously given regarding link speed/latency and whatever that can greatly ruin a "benchmark", here's a value for you:
OWB 1.3 MorphOS loads reuters in 10s on my peg2.
FireFox 3.something loads it in 15s on a pc/xp in the same network (and that pc is quite faster than my peg2).

So you see, it's easy to throw random values.

how do you measure that ?
My OWB 68k need 20 sec to show http://www.reuters.com page(800*600 window).but i want see how long it take until the complete page text is load so the buttom text can read (impressum).if there is a picture load later is not important, but whats important for usability of a browser is that the layout is correct as soon as possible and the text can read full early as possible.if then later the images are load take again 10 sec is not important.

owb 68k need for this until i can read  buttom text 85 sec

firefox need for this 4 sec.safari have same speed and ie too

[unusedunused]

My measure is done when the page is fully loaded (images included). If I take your argument that not everything has to be loaded, then I can already scroll to bottom at 7s or so.

Anyway, silly test if it's not done locally, like Piru told.

but when not all images need load to scroll to buttom, then not much data is need from internet and it is check if there are lockups or slowdowns and the browser is code good.

the amiga browser are in this case very clever programed, text is see very soon, no scroll block and images load later.

i still wonder wy there is no OWB on windows, there are patches since long time in OWB, only idea i have its far not so good as firefox or safari or other browser.

same is of course with netsurf too, but many pages are really same fast show as firefox and safari and IE on winuae.

[unusedunused]

owb on os4 is in meantime using the clever amiga-way to render pages too. lol.
reuters is really quite an unusable benchmark if:

after what time you can move the slider or scroll with cursor keys and you need not wait ?