NetSurf OS3.x Issues

[chris]

Need a hand?

If you want to help, then yes please!

[jennadk]

Does this still require OS3.5+ or would Cloanto's "3.X" plus a a TCP/IP stack like Roadshow be enough to launch? Still curious to figure out if I was having a software or hardware issue and debating between a clean install 3.X + Roadshow or OS3.9 + BB4 + Genesis.

[chris]

Does this still require OS3.5+ or would Cloanto's "3.X" plus a a TCP/IP stack like Roadshow be enough to launch? Still curious to figure out if I was having a software or hardware issue and debating between a clean install 3.X + Roadshow or OS3.9 + BB4 + Genesis.

3.5 or 3.9.  I don't know what 3.X contains but I suspect it doesn't have all the v44+ Reaction classes that NetSurf needs.

[wawrzon]

@chris:
if reaction/classsact classes is all your frontend needs i can test it under aros. for instance aweb woked there. but im not sure if this is helpful, since we get additional unknown varibles. i dont have a clean 3.5 or 3.9 setup at hand and have no time to set one up, unfortunatelly. however testing without being able to build locally may be not helpful again. and im not sure when i have time to ste up netsurf build system. hmm. maybe ill see if it runs at all.

[jennadk]

I tested this in Amiga Forever's 3.X release and, other than having to grab a copy of usergroup.library it seemed to run just great. Going to see about testing that on my 1200.

[chris]

I tested this in Amiga Forever's 3.X release and, other than having to grab a copy of usergroup.library it seemed to run just great. Going to see about testing that on my 1200.

Good to know

[chris]

I've uploaded a new version with the buttons fixed.  I tried rebuilding gcc to default to no FPU.  I'm not convinced it worked, but NetSurf seems a lot more stable now on open/close.  Maybe the 8000000B error is fixed?

[utri007]

Tested with WinUAE. Got whole bunch of weird errors. First I tested with 030 witout FPU. Goint to amiga.org made a guru, tested three times. Changed to cpu to 040, whole UAE crashed. Think that maybe I should document these and couldn't get any of them preproduced. Going to eab.abime.net made one recoverable alert and after that OS freezes. Restarted UAE. Tried to reproduce, didn't happen, but starting Netsurf after that made some weird errors more. It said Please instert Volume System and ENV?

Seems very random?

I will test with real amigas tomorrow or latter today.

[apj]

I did libc comparison tests :
bbc.co.uk/news reload 10 times

libnix clib2 ixemul

3.5   1.5    2.4
2.3   1.1    1.5
2.7   0.7    1.4
2.4   0.7    1.4
3.0   0.8    1.5
3.1   14     1.4
2.6   9.8    1.4
2.9   13     1.4
3.1   10     1.4
2.7   3.3    1.5
(in seconds)

Libnix is slower than ixemul but doesn't get 10x slowdown as clib2.
Ixemul is the fastest.


Got working no-fpu version too.

[utri007]

Tested with real amigas.

040/AGA is some 20-30% slower than it used to be. Slowdown problem is still there.
 
060/RTG is only slightly slower than it used to be. Nothing when compared to 040.

Forget to say, buttons does work.

Tested with TLSFmem and noticed that when slowdown happen, might be just luck. Amiga.org "fetching" time was five first times about 18.5 - 43 seconds and not that order. Untill it decided to spend some 230 seconds to render amiga.org's home page. Next time is displayed page quite fast, but it was still "fetching" some hundred seconds, nothing visible was happening, untill I press stop button.

Nothing weird didn't happen, no erros etc.

[wawrzon]

tested with locally saved page?

if not: all kinds of things can happen online at random to make testing like this of no value. such additional factors need to be eliminated

[unusedunused]

Tested with real amigas.

040/AGA is some 20-30% slower than it used to be. Slowdown problem is still there.
 
060/RTG is only slightly slower than it used to be. Nothing when compared to 040.

Forget to say, buttons does work.

Tested with TLSFmem and noticed that when slowdown happen, might be just luck. Amiga.org "fetching" time was five first times about 18.5 - 43 seconds and not that order. Untill it decided to spend some 230 seconds to render amiga.org's home page. Next time is displayed page quite fast, but it was still "fetching" some hundred seconds, nothing visible was happening, untill I press stop button.

Nothing weird didn't happen, no erros etc.

tlsf memory is too a bad memory allocator, because it is best fit. this give lots of cache misses, so all slow down. tlsf memory is more for realtime dsp systems which use no caches and it is important to have constant allocate time and no mem fragmentation
 i know years ago, that ixemul is the fastest lots faster libnix and clib2. so i furtherdevelop ixemul. many bash against ixemul. thanks to the work of Arti we all know  the confirm now. On my system too ixemul is lots faster

[unusedunused]

@Arti. You write in upper post got working non fpu version too. can you post time results, to see how much slower it is ?

[itix]

tlsf memory is too a bad memory allocator, because it is best fit. this give lots of cache misses, so all slow down. tlsf memory is more for realtime dsp systems which use no caches and it is important to have constant allocate time and no mem fragmentation
 i know years ago, that ixemul is the fastest lots faster libnix and clib2. so i furtherdevelop ixemul. many bash against ixemul. thanks to the work of Arti we all know  the confirm now. On my system too ixemul is lots faster

Ixemul has better memory allocator but ixemul.library is not safe from application using native Amiga API.

[wawrzon]

Ixemul has better memory allocator but ixemul.library is not safe from application using native Amiga API.

i have never understood whats not safe about it..
howener libnix results are nit that bad in comparison. one simply needs to stay away from clib2.

@bernd
you still here?

[nicholas]

@Arti. You write in upper post got working non fpu version too. can you post time results, to see how much slower it is ?

Welcome back Bernd!