Linux-Advocacy Digest #589, Volume #33 Sat, 14 Apr 01 01:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Something cool in gcc (Bob Tennent)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Kurt Lochner)
Re: Something cool in gcc ("Gary Hallock")
Re: New directions for kernel development (R Smith)
Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux? ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Why Linux Is Giving Microsoft a Migraine ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Why Bill Gates Is Ramming His Thick Meaty Cock Up Torvald's Weak Mincing Ass
("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: A mentality problem of linux programmer. (Chad Everett)
Re: Something cool in gcc ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Tennent)
Subject: Re: Something cool in gcc
Date: 14 Apr 2001 02:53:44 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 20:56:51 -0400, mlw wrote:
>> > 4 void function(char *str1, char *str2)
>> > 5 {
>> > 6 int cb = strlen(str1)+strlen(str2)+1;
>> > 7 char str[cb];
>> >
>> >It isn't standard C/C++ but it could certainly save a malloc or two here and
>> >there.
>>
>, the neat feature was the ability to create an
>automatic variable based on another automatic variable. It is NOT standard.
Dynamic arrays have been around since Algol 60. I believe that the new
C standard now in the works includes this feature.
Bob T.
------------------------------
From: Kurt Lochner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 19:58:06 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
silverback wrote:
>
> Kurt Lochner was having a laugh at the absurdist revelations proselytized by:
> >
> >Fraud Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> again twisted the meaning of:
> >>
> >> silverback wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > silverback wrote:
> >>
> >> <etc,... snip>
> >>
> >> > >> wrong again liar. Fascism is corporate rule. The Nazis allowed the
> >> > >> corporations to write the laws.
> >> > >
> >> > >So, then, you agree that it's bad to let the Sierra Club and similar
> >> > >groups write environmental law, and that it's a bad idea to let
> >> > >those with a vested interest in the welfare bureacracy to write
> >> > >welfare laws.
> >> >
> >> > nope, the Sierra club is hardly a corporation buttfuck.
> >>
> >> From http://outingleaders.sierraclub.org:8082/Common/ins_manual/index.asp;
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> The Sierra Club, which includes the chapters, groups, and sections,
> >> is considered one corporation under California corporation law.
> >
> > <sigh> I let the disengneuous fraud out of my kill-file, and he's
> > still trying to misrepresent even the simplest of concepts as some
> > kind of defense for his intentional ignorance..
>
> I wonder if the stupid lying fraud knows that California's 1849
> constitution made a clear distinction between a for profit corporation
> and a non profit corporation?
He tried to appear cognizant of that, by way of innuendo..
--Notice how quiet he got about the California electric utilities? <chuckle>
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something cool in gcc
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 23:26:05 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "mlw"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yea, it is freaky. I always wondered why the compilers never did this,
> now I see that some (certainly not all) do. The error I get in MS-C/C++
> and gcc with ansi and pedantic defined, is that ansi forbids this, but:
>
> int len = strlen(string)+1;
> #ifdef GCC
> char var[len];
> #endif
> char *var = malloc(len);
> #endif
>
> I can see this making some kick-ass fast code.
>
It apparently uses alloca() under the covers. alloca() is available on
many platforms, allocating space from the stack. You should use some
caution with this if your code is going to use pthreads since the stack
size for a thread is fixed at the time of thread creation. So don't go
allocating huge arrays this way. But for small to medium arrays, it
could be quite useful.
Gary
------------------------------
From: R Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: New directions for kernel development
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 23:58:57 -0400
"Arthur H. Gold" wrote:
>
> [Bogus] Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > Thank you,
> > --Linus Torvalds
>
> Looks to me that you're about ten days late. That doesn't
> even work on the Julian calendar.
>
I'm sure the stupid fuckwit typed as fast as he could.
> --ag
> --
> Artie Gold, Austin, TX (finger the cs.utexas.edu account
> for more info)
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --
> Clone Bernie!
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux?
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 03:59:22 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 16:26:32 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bob Hauck"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 05:03:31 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Considering RPM's track record around here, it would be very
difficult
> > >> to do even _as_ poorly as RPM, never mind worse.
>
> > > People argue about ways to make rpm better, and about problems with
rpm,
> > > but few ever contemplate replacing it with the Windows way of handling
> > > installation.
> >
> > I don't recall suggesting replacing it with anything.
>
> What was the point of "difficult to do _as_ poorly as RPM" then?
Simple; someone was commenting on IS and how it was getting the use it
deserved - because IS has a track record of doing poorly, by some set of
standards. Fine, I won't argue that point. RPM, however, consistently
fails more regularly and more annoyingly, in my experience, than IS.
Therefore if we're going to criticize X for some behavior or set of
behaviors, we should also criticize any Y which does the same.
> > Further, if I was going to suggest replacing it with "The WIndows way
> > of handling installation", that would be MSI, not InstallShield.
>
> I figured. You're starting to sound like an MS salesman.
Why? Because I happen to think this is a good technology, and I'm using it
as a counter to some of the typical anti-Windows noise?
Hey, if I could find a comparable technology available free for Linux, I'd
be a happy camper, and I'd think that Linux had made a huge stride to
becoming a really viable contender in the enterprise market. Until its
management tools improve, however, it has a major strike against it. It
also has its strong points; I'm not going anti-Linux here, but this is a big
one against it.
> Maybe you
> could get them to port it to Linux so we could see how wonderful it is.
> Life is easy if you only have to deal with your own products.
MSI doesn't merely support MS products. Or perhaps you meant it only runs
on Windows? True enough. Where can I get RPM for my C64? Or even for
Windows?
> Ok, now you're talking about things that are just not in the perview of
> RPM or any other simple package manager. RPM is for managing one
> system, not rolling out over a network. This MSI is starting to sound
> like something a lot more heavyweight than InstallShield or RPM.
Indeed. It's a management and deployment tool, which happens to also
include installation as part of that process.
> > Now, let's see how RPM manages the following:
> >
> > 1) Roll out a product to 10,000 client machines
>
> Obviously RPM is not designed to do that. There are commercial
> products
Commercial? :)
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is Giving Microsoft a Migraine
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 04:00:51 GMT
[snips]
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > the average woman can do the same.
> > she just needs her boyfriend to set it up for her first.
> > but he'll do it in exchange for unskilled labor.
>
> I demand *skilled* labor.
>
> No fucking microwave-meals.
Oh, come on. KD just isn't _right_ if it ain't nuked. :)
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
[snip of stupid sig-bomb]
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.hackers.malicious
Subject: Re: Why Bill Gates Is Ramming His Thick Meaty Cock Up Torvald's Weak Mincing
Ass
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 04:03:01 GMT
[snip]
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
>
> I can't say Bill Gates is personally responsible for all this, any
> more than Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin was responsible for all
> atrocities conducted within their respective regimes. However, they
> might bear general responsibility.
Isn't this where Godwin's Law steps in? :)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: A mentality problem of linux programmer.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 13 Apr 2001 22:54:05 -0500
On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 02:58:09 GMT, JLI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>When someone complained in this group that something is too
>difficult to do in Unix, the answer is mostly like "you are too dump",
>or "this guy is paid by Microsoft". This indicates a foundament
>mentality problem of linux programmer. Here is another example
>I encountered recently in our company.
>
You are too dump and you're paid by Microsoft.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something cool in gcc
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 04:15:00 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ome.com...
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 20:27:18 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >I did something in gcc, that I thought would make the compiler barf, to
prove a
> >point. Instead of proving my point it would not work, it worked. Wow!
this is a
> >great feature of gcc.
> >
> > 1 #include <unistd.h>
> > 2 #include <string.h>
> > 3 #include <stdio.h>
> > 4 void function(char *str1, char *str2)
> > 5 {
> > 6 int cb = strlen(str1)+strlen(str2)+1;
> > 7 char str[cb];
> > 8 strcpy(str,str1);
> > 9 strcat(str,str2);
> >10 printf("%s\n", str);
> >11 }
> >
> >It isn't standard C/C++ but it could certainly save a malloc or two here
and
> >there.
>
> why it isn't standard c++?
Several reasons:
> > 1 #include <unistd.h>
> > 2 #include <string.h>
> > 3 #include <stdio.h>
Not a one of those is a standard C++ header, and only two of them are
standard C headers. (Before someone goes weenie about "My compiler supports
those!" the standard headers are <cstring> (for C-style strings; use
<string> for C++-style strings) and <cstdio> - the unistd.h thing is totally
non-standard.)
> > 6 int cb = strlen(str1)+strlen(str2)+1;
> > 7 char str[cb];
Using a non-constant for an array size like that is neither C89/90 nor C++
compliant; it is, however, available in C99.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 00:42:28 -0400
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:25:08 -0400
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >>
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote
> >> on Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:59:21 -0400
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >WesTralia wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > One which has the full overhead of a function call, including
> >> >> > the overhead of pushing the CPU state onto the stack, and
> >> >> > recovering it at the end.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> "pushing the CPU state onto the stack"
> >> >>
> >> >> OK genius, explain what you mean!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Pushing all data registers, pointers, and the program counter
> >> >onto the stack.
> >> >
> >> >What did YOU think it means?
> >>
> >> Pointers? What pointers?
> >
> >
> >Stack pointer
>
> Pushing the stack pointer on the stack seems to me rather pointless... :-)
>
> >Frame pointer
>
> Yes, that's a valid one. Of course, that's usually in a register.
> (Side point: Oh gosh the VAX was elegant, from a machine language
> point of view. Am I spoiled rotten? :-) )
Yes, all of us who programmed VAXes were spoiled.
I'm thinking of writing a VAX emulator.
>
> >Heap Pointer.
>
> A heap pointer needn't be saved; it's part of process address space.
> Even if it is, it's just another register.
>
> >Data Segment pointer
>
> Ditto. (Maybe on a pre-VMpage system, though, like System7 on a
> PDP 11/70. But that's positively *ancient*. :-) )
If it's Intel, it's part of the CPU state.
>
> >Text Segment Pointer
>
> Ditto.
>
> Oh, and you forgot block segment start.... :-)
>
> >
> >etc. etc.
> >
> >MORON.
>
> Well, excuse me for pedantifying. :-P
Sorry, Ghost...I got you confused with someone else.
>
> >
> >>
> >> That's tangential to storing the state of the micro during a context
> >> switch or function call for later restore. A pointer is merely a
> >> novel method of interpreting a number within a general register or
> >> memory location as a memory address. (For that matter, a number is
> >> merely a novel method of interpreting the bits within a general
> >> register or memory address, and the bits within a general register
> >> are a novel method of interpreting logic voltages, which are merely
> >> novel methods of interpreting largish collections of electrons [*]:
> >> 1 pF = about 6,250,000 electrons per volt.)
> >>
> >> Of course, one of the pieces of CPU state is the program counter.... :-)
> >>
> >> OK, so I quibble.
> >
> >You also just demonstrated that you don't know fuck about CPUs
>
> Oh really? :-P
>
> I at least know that pointers are merely a human way of relating
> to bags o' bits. That was my point; as far as the micro is concerned,
> it's pushing bits from a data register to the address buss.
> A bit's a bit.
>
> Many CPUs for example don't care what's stored in their registers,
> which means that one can do stupid things like
>
> MOV #1,R1
> MOV 4(R1),R1
>
> and of course cause an access violation, but why should the
> first instruction really care?
>
> I will note that the 68000, however, went the split-register route
> (8 D registers, 8 A registers, two of which are dedicated to
> SP (A6) and PC (A7), respectively.) In cases such as that, one
> might be able to cause an exception (although why even bother?)
> on an immediate load to an A register. However, HP PA uses
> 32 general-purpose registers which can be used for pretty much
> anything (although HP does have a calling convention, dedicating 5 registers
> thereto (4 parameters, 1 return; extra parameters are pushed on the
> stack as always), and register 0 is *always* zero). I don't know
> what SPARC uses, but I suspect it's similar. Makes compiler writing
> very simple; one doesn't have to worry about whether LEA 10(%ax)
> makes sense when allocating %ax.
>
> And then there's ... errrm .... the x86 ... . I don't know whether
> the 386 fixed all of the weidies regarding register usage or not.
> (It probably did, but I do wonder.)
x86 has the Data Segment, Text Segment, etc. registers.
So also the IBM-370 programmer's model (who knows what the
ACTUAL hardware looked lik...probably even changed over time,
..but that was the model presented to the programmer by the
microcode.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Note also that a smart compiler won't push all registers onto the stack;
> >
> >Depends on the CPU. Some CPU's don't give you any choice. Some do.
>
> I've yet to run into one at this point which doesn't
> allow specification of which registers to push and pop.
> To be fair, though, I really haven't coded in that many:
>
> 68000 (Motorola)
> 8086 (Intel et al)
> 1802 (Harris)
> VAX 11/7xx (DEC)
> 6502 (?)
> HP PA RISC (HP)
If you ever get a chance to look at IBM 370, you'll see the
80x86 is derived from it.
>
> and a very small smattering of SPARC (Sun), which I might have seen
> during debugging something or other. Can't say I've coded in it yet.
> (I might; I've got a Sparc 5 at home running Linux. Maybe when
> California gets its power woes straightened out.)
>
> [rest snippd]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> EAC code #191 7d:06h:27m actually running Linux.
> I was asleep at the switch the rest of the time.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 00:42:48 -0400
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:25:08 -0400
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >>
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote
> >> on Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:59:21 -0400
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >WesTralia wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > One which has the full overhead of a function call, including
> >> >> > the overhead of pushing the CPU state onto the stack, and
> >> >> > recovering it at the end.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> "pushing the CPU state onto the stack"
> >> >>
> >> >> OK genius, explain what you mean!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Pushing all data registers, pointers, and the program counter
> >> >onto the stack.
> >> >
> >> >What did YOU think it means?
> >>
> >> Pointers? What pointers?
> >
> >
> >Stack pointer
>
> Pushing the stack pointer on the stack seems to me rather pointless... :-)
>
> >Frame pointer
>
> Yes, that's a valid one. Of course, that's usually in a register.
> (Side point: Oh gosh the VAX was elegant, from a machine language
> point of view. Am I spoiled rotten? :-) )
Yes, all of us who programmed VAXes were spoiled.
I'm thinking of writing a VAX emulator.
>
> >Heap Pointer.
>
> A heap pointer needn't be saved; it's part of process address space.
> Even if it is, it's just another register.
>
> >Data Segment pointer
>
> Ditto. (Maybe on a pre-VMpage system, though, like System7 on a
> PDP 11/70. But that's positively *ancient*. :-) )
If it's Intel, it's part of the CPU state.
>
> >Text Segment Pointer
>
> Ditto.
>
> Oh, and you forgot block segment start.... :-)
>
> >
> >etc. etc.
> >
> >MORON.
>
> Well, excuse me for pedantifying. :-P
Sorry, Ghost...I got you confused with someone else.
>
> >
> >>
> >> That's tangential to storing the state of the micro during a context
> >> switch or function call for later restore. A pointer is merely a
> >> novel method of interpreting a number within a general register or
> >> memory location as a memory address. (For that matter, a number is
> >> merely a novel method of interpreting the bits within a general
> >> register or memory address, and the bits within a general register
> >> are a novel method of interpreting logic voltages, which are merely
> >> novel methods of interpreting largish collections of electrons [*]:
> >> 1 pF = about 6,250,000 electrons per volt.)
> >>
> >> Of course, one of the pieces of CPU state is the program counter.... :-)
> >>
> >> OK, so I quibble.
> >
> >You also just demonstrated that you don't know fuck about CPUs
>
> Oh really? :-P
>
> I at least know that pointers are merely a human way of relating
> to bags o' bits. That was my point; as far as the micro is concerned,
> it's pushing bits from a data register to the address buss.
> A bit's a bit.
>
> Many CPUs for example don't care what's stored in their registers,
> which means that one can do stupid things like
>
> MOV #1,R1
> MOV 4(R1),R1
>
> and of course cause an access violation, but why should the
> first instruction really care?
>
> I will note that the 68000, however, went the split-register route
> (8 D registers, 8 A registers, two of which are dedicated to
> SP (A6) and PC (A7), respectively.) In cases such as that, one
> might be able to cause an exception (although why even bother?)
> on an immediate load to an A register. However, HP PA uses
> 32 general-purpose registers which can be used for pretty much
> anything (although HP does have a calling convention, dedicating 5 registers
> thereto (4 parameters, 1 return; extra parameters are pushed on the
> stack as always), and register 0 is *always* zero). I don't know
> what SPARC uses, but I suspect it's similar. Makes compiler writing
> very simple; one doesn't have to worry about whether LEA 10(%ax)
> makes sense when allocating %ax.
>
> And then there's ... errrm .... the x86 ... . I don't know whether
> the 386 fixed all of the weidies regarding register usage or not.
> (It probably did, but I do wonder.)
x86 has the Data Segment, Text Segment, etc. registers.
So also the IBM-370 programmer's model (who knows what the
ACTUAL hardware looked lik...probably even changed over time,
..but that was the model presented to the programmer by the
microcode.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Note also that a smart compiler won't push all registers onto the stack;
> >
> >Depends on the CPU. Some CPU's don't give you any choice. Some do.
>
> I've yet to run into one at this point which doesn't
> allow specification of which registers to push and pop.
> To be fair, though, I really haven't coded in that many:
>
> 68000 (Motorola)
> 8086 (Intel et al)
> 1802 (Harris)
> VAX 11/7xx (DEC)
> 6502 (?)
> HP PA RISC (HP)
If you ever get a chance to look at IBM 370, you'll see the
80x86 is derived from it.
>
> and a very small smattering of SPARC (Sun), which I might have seen
> during debugging something or other. Can't say I've coded in it yet.
> (I might; I've got a Sparc 5 at home running Linux. Maybe when
> California gets its power woes straightened out.)
>
> [rest snippd]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> EAC code #191 7d:06h:27m actually running Linux.
> I was asleep at the switch the rest of the time.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 00:44:20 -0400
Goldhammer wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 23:29:30 GMT,
> Chris Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 23:19:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
> >wrote:
>
> >>A full-featured BSOD is one
> >>you can't recover from.
> >
> >I have the screensaver for NT. Takes a look at the system and
> >generates a realistic BSOD, as well as locking out the keyboard and
> >mouse for the first 15 seconds. Nice :)
> >
> >It used to be available at www.sysinternals.com If you google search
> >on BSOD screensaver you should find it.
>
> That's just a poor third-party imitation
> of the real MS BSOD (tm). It doesn't
> have the full functionality of the real
> thing. Missing are two important technological
> innovations: randomness and true unrecoverability.
And system configuration corruption. You must not forget that!
>
> I don't think we'll be seeing a clone
> of the MS BSOD (tm) software for Linux
> unless the kernel is patched to provide
> better kernel panic support. This is,
> of course, a design flaw in the Linux
> kernel. Maybe they'll fix it in 2.5.
random writes to /etc/ files.
>
> --
> Don't think you are. Know you are.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
