On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 20:13, Erik Price wrote:
However, what is the convention in C? There seem to be two fine ways
of doing it -- using the preprocessor, or the const keyword:
#define NUMBER_OF_UNITS 8
const int NUMBER_OF_UNITS = 8;
Generally, the more the compiler knows, the better it
On Tue, 2003-08-19 at 00:21, Derek Martin wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 11:13:48PM -0400, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to understand how one uses raw disk i/o in Linux. I
If you're not a filesystem engineer, you probably just really don't
want to do this. This is the level at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:53:01 -0400
Ray Cote [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 8:13 PM -0400 8/18/03, Erik Price wrote:
However, what is the convention in C? There seem to be two fine
ways of doing it -- using the preprocessor, or the const keyword:
Derek Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 08:13:05PM -0400, Erik Price wrote:
However, what is the convention in C? There seem to be two fine
ways of doing it -- using the preprocessor, or the const keyword:
#define NUMBER_OF_UNITS 8
const int NUMBER_OF_UNITS
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 02:50:01AM -0400, Aaron Hope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 20:13, Erik Price wrote:
However, what is the convention in C? There seem to be two fine ways
of doing it -- using the preprocessor, or the const keyword:
#define NUMBER_OF_UNITS 8
const
Aaron Hope [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2003-08-18 at 20:13, Erik Price wrote:
However, what is the convention in C? There seem to be two fine ways
of doing it -- using the preprocessor, or the const keyword:
#define NUMBER_OF_UNITS 8
const int NUMBER_OF_UNITS = 8;
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 09:07:23AM -0400, Kevin D. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another possibility is to use enums, i.e.:
enum { BUFSIZE=512 };
char arr[BUFSIZE];
I use this frequently, and I recommend this.
One advantage of enum's is that symbolic debuggers can display
On Tue, 2003-08-19 at 09:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To avoid rehashing, here are the two arguments:
Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Reply-To Munging Considered Useful
http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml
Thank God
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
On Tue, 2003-08-19 at 03:12, Aaron Hope wrote:
I think that he's looking for the same raw i/o that oracle likes so
much:
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/SCSI-2.4-HOWTO/rawdev.html
Yep. I've also seen this reference.
But while you don't have to be writing a filesystem to want this, it's
still
However, what is the convention in C? There seem to be two fine ways
of doing it -- using the preprocessor, or the const keyword:
#define NUMBER_OF_UNITS 8
const int NUMBER_OF_UNITS = 8;
I'm just interested in hearing about whether one is more appropriate
than the other in some
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 02:50:01AM -0400, Aaron Hope wrote:
BTW, Is there a reason why mailman isn't configured to set the
reply-to header?
Yes. We've had this holy war before, and the (small) majority of list
members were against reply-to. The logical argument:
Setting the reply-to header
More excuses than memory leaks in a C++ program... :)
I apologize for the delay in getting my notes onto
the 'net. At last they're available for browsing
and download.
These notes are exactly what was in the handouts, produced
from the same sources. (By a Python program, natch).
The page does not contain any php code, I have just defaulted to the
extension because I will incorporate some code in later. My virtual host
section of httpd.conf looks as follows:
NameVirtualHost *
VirtualHost *
ServerName derek.homeunix.org
DocumentRoot /var/www/html
/VirtualHost
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, at 2:50am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, Is there a reason why mailman isn't configured to set the reply-to
header?
Some time back, the list took a vote, and more people voted harmful then
useful, and we went with the plurality.
To avoid rehashing, here are the two
Tom Fogal wrote:
I'm just interested in hearing about whether one is more appropriate
than the other in some contexts. Thanks.
Generally, I would use #defines for anything but function parameters.
Passing things as a constant reference (const type val) is a good way to
avoid passing a large
Tom Fogal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the const int way stores the variable in read only memory, and thus, IMO is a
waste of memory. Also, it would be required to do a memory lookup when
accessing the value.
The value *might* get stored in read-only memory. The standard
doesn't require this.
Tom Fogal wrote:
I'm just interested in hearing about whether one is more appropriate
than the other in some contexts. Thanks.
Generally, I would use #defines for anything but function parameters.
Passing things as a constant reference (const type val) is a good way to
avoid
Tom Fogal wrote:
The bit about memory addresses instead of some large value is entirely correct.
Practically however, this will only be better when passing a value larger than
the register size of the architecture you are on. For instance, on ix86 linux,
all pointers are 32-bit integers. Thus
Ok I finally got access to my machine to assess the damage, I am running RH9,
Kernel 2.4.20-19.9 and Apache 2.0.40-21.3.
Here is the error message I recieved when trying to restard httpd:
Stopping httpd:[ OK ]
Starting httpd: [Tue Aug 19 17:27:50
Tom Fogal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The const is purely optional; you could just as easily remember yourself that
'hey, i dont want to change that value in this function' and simply not do it.
The justification i was given for such usage is that someone who is not you
can quickly look at the
ANSI C allows the implementation to store duplicate strings in the
same memory location at runtime.
I stand corrected. My claim came from a very old document. The only
(draft) version of the ISO standard I have at my finger tips says it is
now unspecified. I think my argument still stands
I will be hosting a site for someone who has an exchange server set up
locally. Mail traffic for the domain needs to end up at that server
rather than be hosted on my web server (sendmail). Can I just have the
MX record in DNS set to point to their exchange server? Or does the MX
record point
On Tue, 2003-08-19 at 08:46, Bob Bell wrote:
Actually, the following is valid C99:
const int m = 10;
int
foo(int n) {
char s[n];
char t[m];
...
}
Yes, C99 supports variable sized arrays, but that's not always what you
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Jason Kern wrote:
I will be hosting a site for someone who has an exchange server set up
locally. Mail traffic for the domain needs to end up at that server
rather than be hosted on my web server (sendmail). Can I just have the
MX record in DNS set to point to their
You could certainly do it either way you outline, but by far the easiest
would be to simply have the MX record point to their mail server. No
reason not to do it that way -- since it's pretty much the only time that
DNS allows you to separate out a service based on IP, and you might as
well take
Upon further inspection I found that my system had been hacked. I found
multiple directories
/tmp/'usernameonmysystem'-orbit (multiple occurances, one for each
username)
/tmp/ssh1kzaah
/tmp/ssh2...
I think I know what orbit is, and I never installed it, but running a
netstat showed multiple
On Tue, 2003-08-19 at 23:10, Greg Bonnette wrote:
Upon further inspection I found that my system had been hacked. I found
multiple directories
/tmp/'usernameonmysystem'-orbit (multiple occurances, one for each
username)
/tmp/ssh1kzaah
/tmp/ssh2...
Um, I'm not denying that your system
28 matches
Mail list logo
