Václav Haisman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Deciding that some features are bad beforehand, before you evaluate
them is IMO bad idea. Let interested people write a bunch of C++
modules with the complete language before deciding on what shouldn't
be used.
It's not that simple. The complete
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But prior to long-term discussion, please commit my 4 patches
firstly. They are nearly CPP-independent and do no harm to current
FreeBSD kernel.
We don't do the kind of changes you propose without discussion.
--- kern.mk.orig Fri Jun 30 05:15:25 2006
+++
Dag-Erling [iso-8859-1] Sm grav wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But prior to long-term discussion, please commit my 4 patches
firstly. They are nearly CPP-independent and do no harm to current
FreeBSD kernel.
We don't do the kind of changes you propose without discussion.
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But -ffreestanding doesn't work with C++.
While the C++ standard does define hosted and freestanding
implementations, its definition is different from (and less useful
than) that in the C standard. For instance, the C++ standard requires
the existence of abort(),
在 2006-07-11二的 16:13 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
I agree with you. Firstly, we may keep up with OpenDarwin, just as
what's on
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/DeviceDrivers/Conceptual/IOKitFundamentals/Features/chapter_2_section_6.html
At the same time, we may port/rewrite C++
Václav Haisman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Binary compatibility is always a problem, no mater the language used.
Besides, doesn't the FreeBSD kernel build system always compile all
modules?
It can be configured in make.conf if you want only a subset of modules.
Deciding that some features are
mal content [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was looking for a way to write a small wrapper program
that disables network access and then exec()'s a given
program.
Sorry for the late reply, but ... The easiest way to do
what you described is to run the program in a jail which
has a jail IP that
Dag-Erling [iso-8859-1] Sm grav wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But -ffreestanding doesn't work with C++.
While the C++ standard does define hosted and freestanding
implementations, its definition is different from (and less useful
than) that in the C standard. For instance, the C++
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dag-Erling [iso-8859-1] Sm grav wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But -ffreestanding doesn't work with C++.
While the C++ standard does define hosted and freestanding
implementations, its definition is different from (and less useful
than) that in the C standard.
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 10:45:52PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just as you said, C++ is more complicated than C. However, without
C++ exception and other advanced features, it hasn't brought much
complexity to C++ runtime library. Early C++ compiler even translates
C++ code into C code
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 10:57, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
For example, I think C++ exception handling is really poorly suited for
low-level code.
Exception handling is required by the standard, even for freestanding
implementations.
Standards aside, in Darwin, the C++ Apple uses does not
(please don't Cc me on list replies; chopping down the Cc list)
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just as you said, C++ is more complicated than C. However, without
C++ exception and other advanced features, it hasn't brought much
complexity to C++ runtime library. Early C++
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Václav Haisman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Deciding that some features are bad beforehand, before you evaluate them
: is IMO bad idea. Let interested people write a bunch of C++ modules with
: the complete language before deciding on what shouldn't be
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: --- systm.h.orig Mon Jul 10 05:42:58 2006
: +++ systm.hMon Jul 10 18:44:01 2006
: @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@
: int suword16(void *base, int word);
: int suword32(void *base, int32_t word);
: int
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: You can LOOK DOWN UPON me again and again. But is it really your patent,
: a FreeBSD security team member's patent: you know what FreeBSD kernel
: and C++ is, but I am too BRAINLESS to understand FreeBSD kernel and C++?
I don't
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: and OS X both of which I've written a PCI driver for) we require device
: driver writers to go through a lot more hoops to do certain things like
: allocate resources. At the very least there is much that can be
John Baldwin wrote:
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 10:57, Dag-Erling Sm grav wrote:
For example, I think C++ exception handling is really poorly suited for
low-level code.
Exception handling is required by the standard, even for freestanding
implementations.
Standards aside, in Darwin, the C++
John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 10:57, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What's more, can the object model function really as OpenDarwin's
IOKit class model?
Does it need to?
He's trying to port IOKit to FreeBSD for his exercise (if you
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 10:45:52PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just as you said, C++ is more complicated than C. However, without
C++ exception and other advanced features, it hasn't brought much
complexity to C++ runtime library. Early C++ compiler even
Dag-Erling [iso-8859-1] Sm grav wrote:
John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 10:57, Dag-Erling Sm grav wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What's more, can the object model function really as OpenDarwin's
IOKit class model?
Does it need to?
He's trying to port
Why do you all consider importing C++ code to FreeBSD kernel to be so
complicated at the beginning?
Matthias Andree wrote:
(please don't Cc me on list replies; chopping down the Cc list)
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just as you said, C++ is more complicated than C. However,
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 12:33, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: and OS X both of which I've written a PCI driver for) we require device
: driver writers to go through a lot more hoops to do certain things like
:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On Tuesday 11 July 2006 12:33, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: : and OS X both of which I've written a PCI driver for) we require
Dear All,
Does anybody succeed to boot FreeBSD on an Intel Vanderpool
capable machine? My colleague tried it and the result is a BTX halt as can
be seen on the screenshots on page linked. He successfully run unmodified
Linux, Windows 2003 under Xen virtual machines, but FreeBSD failed in the
At 12:43 AM +0800 7/12/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before I do enough experiments, naturally I would never
talk about this thing.
I don't know why Dag-Erling C. Smo/rgrav is so unfriendly
to me ??? !!!
He is commenting on your patches. Do not take those as
personal attacks on you.
You
I asked the person who wrote vtxassist (only SVM supports paged real
mode) - he thinks that it broke when support for big real mode was
added. He did not seem particularly inclined to fix it. It may be that
Xen's VT-x support is considered less interesting to his organization
now that VMware is
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 15:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Baldwin wrote:
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 12:33, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: and OS X both of which I've written a PCI driver for) we require device
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 14:48, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On Tuesday 11 July 2006 12:33, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: : and OS X
It's less ugly than it used to be, esp. with the bus_read_X() stuff. There's
no separate bus_alloc_resource/bus_setup_intr for interrupts though for
example, just bus_setup_intr() equivalent. This is pretty simple though:
/* OS X */
IOMemoryMap *myBarMap;
void *myBar;
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Why do you all consider importing C++ code to FreeBSD kernel to be so
: complicated at the beginning?
Many people reading this list have conducted experiments in the past
at various employers. Everyone who has conducted the
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On Tuesday 11 July 2006 15:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: John Baldwin wrote:
:
: On Tuesday 11 July 2006 12:33, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: John Baldwin [EMAIL
2006/7/11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Why do you all consider importing C++ code to FreeBSD kernel to be so
complicated at the beginning?
Matthias Andree wrote:
(please don't Cc me on list replies; chopping down the Cc list)
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just as
April-June 2006 Status Report
Introduction
With the release of FreeBSD 5.5 and FreeBSD 6.1, the second quarter of
2006 has been productive. Google is sponsoring 14 students to work on
FreeBSD as part of their Summer of Code Program (most of which already
submitted a report for
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 02:25:21AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthias Andree wrote:
Why would people write Windows application with rather MFC/ATL/.NET
Framework than direct Windows API?
Because they like buggy code? (Not that the basic API is much better)
Why is gtkmm created for
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rick C. Petty [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 02:25:21AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good packages for various APIs are much easier to learn/debug than those
original APIs.
What makes you say that C++ would provide a good API?
Good point. About the
M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
V lav Haisman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Deciding that some features are bad beforehand, before you evaluate them
: is IMO bad idea. Let interested people write a bunch of C++ modules with
: the complete language before deciding
John Baldwin wrote:
On Tuesday 11 July 2006 12:33, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: and OS X both of which I've written a PCI driver for) we require device
: driver writers to go through a lot more hoops to do certain
FWIW and just IMHO;
I think it would be really nice to have the IOKit, or a lookalike that uses
kobj(), available on FreeBSD. Another interesting experiment that I've
mentioned before is OpenBFS:
http://www.bug-br.org.br/openbfs/index.phtml?section=development
OpenBFS, as all file systems under
At 7:03 PM -0400 7/11/06, Mike Meyer wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rick C. Petty
[EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 02:25:21AM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good packages for various APIs are much easier to learn/debug
than those original APIs.
What makes you say that
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would repeat several sentences in my last reply.
Why would people write Windows application with rather MFC/ATL/.NET Framework
than direct Windows API? Why is gtkmm framework created for GTK+? Would you
write a X11 application with original X11
Jason Slagle wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would repeat several sentences in my last reply.
Why would people write Windows application with rather MFC/ATL/.NET
Framework than direct Windows API? Why is gtkmm framework created for
GTK+? Would you write a X11
Jason Slagle wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would repeat several sentences in my last reply.
Why would people write Windows application with rather MFC/ATL/.NET
Framework than direct Windows API? Why is gtkmm framework created for
GTK+? Would you write a X11
42 matches
Mail list logo
