On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Attilio Rao wrote:
Even if I have no proof-of-concepts (so maybe somebody can show that
this is not fair), if we have setjmp/longjmp in the kernel we can have
a correct exception handling mechanism without not great problems.
You'd think that, but at least one issue is
Can anybody tell me where /boot/boot is built in the source
tree?
I'm trying to put together a customised bootable image for
qemu but can't find this missing piece.
MC
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
mal content [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can anybody tell me where /boot/boot is built in the source
tree?
src/sys/boot
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
On 12/07/06, Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mal content [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can anybody tell me where /boot/boot is built in the source
tree?
src/sys/boot
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Argh! I must have looked just about everywhere else...
thanks!
MC
On Tue, 2006-Jul-11 21:26:09 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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:
I think the general concensus is that it's up to one of the
Quoting M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from Tue, 11 Jul 2006
10:32:03 -0600 (MDT)):
As to your other points, the resource allocation repetition has been
improved with bus_alloc_resources. the trouble is that many drivers
haven't been converted to use the new api.
Would you please come
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 11:37:52PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote:
Even if I have no proof-of-concepts (so maybe somebody can show that
this is not fair), if we have setjmp/longjmp in the kernel we can have
a correct exception handling mechanism without not great problems.
ROFL. Sorry, but using
On 7/12/06, Joerg Sonnenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 11:37:52PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote:
Even if I have no proof-of-concepts (so maybe somebody can show that
this is not fair), if we have setjmp/longjmp in the kernel we can have
a correct exception handling
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 06:33:09PM +0530, Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
On 7/12/06, Joerg Sonnenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 11:37:52PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote:
Even if I have no proof-of-concepts (so maybe somebody can show that
this is not fair), if we have
--- Peter Jeremy [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto:
...
I think the general concensus is that it's up to one of the proponents
of this to actually implement it and demonstrate that it works and has
no undesirable side-effects.
I only wanted to point out that Darwin modules are not the only
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
C++ is the de-facto standard for OO: a lot of people know how to use it
Oh gods, does this bring to mind lots (and *lots*) of scathing
commentary. I'll restrict myself to just one:
Windows is the de-facto standard OS: a lot of people know how to
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 04:10:29PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
C++ is the de-facto standard for OO
That is just sad. So many other languages do a much better job of
implementing OO (Smalltalk, Java, Python, even Scheme). While we're at
it, why not implement a bytecode interpreter for all
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rick C. Petty [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 04:10:29PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
C++ is the de-facto standard for OO
That is just sad. So many other languages do a much better job of
implementing OO (Smalltalk, Java, Python, even Scheme). While
Rick C. Petty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
C++ is the de-facto standard for OO
That is just sad. So many other languages do a much better job of
implementing OO (Smalltalk, Java, Python, even Scheme).
That's true. At OOPSLA '97, Alan Kay (an OO pioneer)
--- Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto:
...
Windows is the de-facto standard OS: a lot of people know how to use
it.
Well... I wish several commercial CAD software producers thought otherwise.
We're bright enough to know that popularity doesn't imply technical
excellence,
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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+?
2006/7/12, Joerg Sonnenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 11:37:52PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote:
Even if I have no proof-of-concepts (so maybe somebody can show that
this is not fair), if we have setjmp/longjmp in the kernel we can have
a correct exception handling mechanism
Mike Meyer wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
C++ is the de-facto standard for OO: a lot of people know how to use it
Oh gods, does this bring to mind lots (and *lots*) of scathing
commentary. I'll restrict myself to just one:
Windows is the de-facto standard OS: a lot of
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Intron [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
Mike Meyer wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
C++ is the de-facto standard for OO: a lot of people know how to use it
We're bright enough to know that popularity doesn't imply technical
excellence, otherwise we
Quoting Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:54:53 -0400):
C++ may be the best choice
because of it's roots in C, but there are better OO languages with
roots in C as well. Even taking all that into account, C++ may be the
best choice. But don't simply settle on C++ (or OO, for
Hi all,
I was browsing the list of projects and ideas and stumbled upon one
that's rather simple and which would have been useful in the past:
Write the FreeBSD version at the top of the display (or somewhere
similar visible) - so lazy users know what they are installing
(version: release,
Joao Barros wrote:
Hi all,
I was browsing the list of projects and ideas and stumbled upon one
that's rather simple and which would have been useful in the past:
Write the FreeBSD version at the top of the display (or somewhere
similar visible) - so lazy users know what they are installing
rtsp://jello.ironport.com:80/bafug-live.sdp
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Im sorry I didn't understand you. setjmp() stores a few register contents
[notably ip] in a jmpbuf -which are restored after a longjmp(). How is the
try/catch mechanism more efficient than a setjmp()/longjmp() in terms of
space/time complexity?
thanks
-kamal
On 7/12/06, Joerg Sonnenberger
24 matches
Mail list logo
