Linux-Development-Sys Digest #856, Volume #7 Mon, 15 May 00 01:13:16 EDT
Contents:
getting online successfully (Brian Begg)
Assembler section ("Eitan Rabin")
Re: ANSI C & void main() ("Frank")
Re: ANSI C & void main() ("Frank")
Need input on developing a unified configuration program for linux (Mongoose)
Re: ANSI C & void main() ("Mark Graybill")
process structure ("flybird")
Re: ANSI C & void main() ("Mark Graybill")
Re: ANSI C & void main() (Paul Kimoto)
Re: Need input on developing a unified configuration program for linux (Todd Knarr)
Re: Need input on developing a unified configuration program for linux (David A.
Lethe)
Re: ANSI C & void main() ("Mark Graybill")
Re: ANSI C++ & void main() ("Mark Graybill")
Kernel panic: aic7xxx: unrecoverable BRKADRINT. In swapper task - not syncing.
("Reinhold J. Gerharz" >)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Begg)
Subject: getting online successfully
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 20:10:28 GMT
5/14/00 (Mom's Day!)
Hi there:
I'm new at Linux, but I think I installed
correctly. I'm in Gnome and X Windows,
and I have Netscape loaded, but I
just cannot seem to dial-up to my
ISP.
How do I get online? What's my first
step to get there? I don't even know if
my modem is intalled or what port.
Please help if you can - I'd be very
greteful.
Sincerely,
Brian
P.S. you may e-mail if u wish
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Webmasters New RevShare Program http://www.uncensored-news.com/revshare.html
------------------------------
From: "Eitan Rabin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Assembler section
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 02:57:36 +0200
Does any of you know what is the use of any of the following inline
assembler code section in the Linux kernel:
__ex_table
.previous
.fixup
Thanks in advance
------------------------------
From: "Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ANSI C & void main()
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 00:19:34 GMT
Kaz Kylheku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
^
^ Perhaps you are interpreting the term ``shall'' simply to mean ``will''...
No, I'm not. If I misinterpreted anything it certainly wasn't "shall."
Frank
------------------------------
From: "Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ANSI C & void main()
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 00:28:47 GMT
Joe Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
^
^ I used to say things like that... until the day we switched from a VAX
^ to Suns down here, and all my code that passed *ints to procedures
^ expecting *chars quit working.
Then perhaps you should've been writing portable code from the beginning.
^ > Portability is certainly essential in
^ > many cases but it is also unnecessarily restrictive in others. If I wrote
this
^ > Bigix operating system the standard would eventually be changed to allow
for
^ > it, but in the interim no code will be written for it by anyone unable to
look
^ > beyond the standards. Those who do write code for it will be setting the
^ > standard.
^
^ Writing non standard-compliant code may certainly be necessary in some
^ cases. But not following it without having some good reason is just
^ foolish.
Then I suppose I've always had a good reason to not abide by the standard.
Since I have not yet developed anything for Linux, this discussion is off
topic.
Frank
------------------------------
From: Mongoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Need input on developing a unified configuration program for linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 01:57:58 GMT
Hello,
I'm am currently developing a linux configuration program that
will be designed to run on all distros for a college research project.
It is to allow people to create modules for configuring different
aspects of a linux os. Now these modules can be written in any
language that can be executed on a system and use stdio. Now to use
these modules I was thinking of having the modules create cgi forms
using html. This would require the user to have a loopback connect and
a web browser on their system, two very common and simple items for
linux. The webrowser would load the html page, and send a cgi string
back to the module and the module would edit the system based on the
users input in the cgi string. Now I was wondering if most people
agree with the idea of using a web browser for the system
administration? I figure using html is a common way of implementing an
interface that most people know. They wouldn't have to learn anything
new in order to create a module for whatever they wish. Plus
webbrowsers are available in almost every platform possible so
transportability would be no issue. What does everyone else think of
this idea? Any suggestions?
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Mark Graybill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Mark Graybill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ANSI C & void main()
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 02:31:45 GMT
Kaz Kylheku wrote in message ...
>You don't seem to be quite ready to analyze the text for others. You
haven't
>read enough of it to have a complete picture and seem to be struggling with
the
>``standardese'' language which these standards are written in. Also, you
are
>desperately trying to interpret the wording in a way that salvages your
case,
>which is not a reasonable approach.
Hmm. I never heard of "standardese." I will check with ANSI, ISO, OMB,
IEEE, and a couple of others to see if I can learn "standardese." Perhaps
they will have seminars and courses available. Poppycock! There is no such
thing. I think it is you who are desperate (although I don't know why), and
you have a problem with being wrong.
The standard is written in English. There is no prohibition of the type of
void for main(), and the behavior of any type that does not return a value
is clearly defined. It is as clear as the English language has ability to
articulate.
Instead of resorting to cheap tricks like the statement above, why don't you
come up with an interpretation with some solid arguments, then explain it to
us "idiots."
You know in my 20+ years experience in the field, out of some of the best
computer scientists I knew, a few were quite arrogant. That arrogance not
only reduced their value to the company, but they made poor engineers and it
stood in the way of rising above their current levels of performance. They
didn't work well on teams and a couple of them had to choose to be team
players or find work elsewhere. When a company invests several billion
dollars in a project of hundreds of people, team members learn pretty
quickly to put ego aside.
>Another problem is that you are looking at the wrong standard. We were are
>discussing C, not C++. The subject of this thread is ``ANSI C and void
main''
>not ``ANSI C++ and void main''. You cannot substitute one for the other.
No, I am not looking into the wrong standard, and if you wouldn't have been
so lazy and read the other posts in this thread, you wouldn't have made this
statement. But you seem like the kind of person that likes to only pay
attention to the details you wish to, and carry yourself in a sludge of
dissonance.
The facts are indisputable: The original poster posted the code: void
main(){cout << "Hello world";} This is a C++ program, and one of my
previous posts brings my realization of this to light. The current ANSI C++
standard lets an implementation define any type they wish - but all
implementations must support the two morphotypes of int main(). The current
ANSI C++ standard also defines the behavior in the absence of code that
returns a value from main(). Therefore if you use void main(), it is not
only legal, but the behavior of post main() execution is indeed defined.
>Let's look at a draft of C9X (WG14/N843, August 3, 1998)
>which is probably very close to the one that was approved by ISO
>as the 1999 definition of C:
The issue is one of C++ standards, not C.
>Anyway, this off topic thread has gone on long enough and I'm tired of it,
as
>I'm sure are readers of comp.os.linux.development.system.
This response is expected from a person with the psychological makeup I
suspected, which is why I made the statement in a previous e-mail to you:
"Someone who doesn't err, such as yourself, are appropriate for being the
gods of the newsgroups - go for it. Linux has enough experts on it, and I
fail to see what I have to offer with you around."
"... I've learned my lesson."
You believe you had the psychological advantage as well as the technical.
The psychological advantage was artificial (sorry), and the technical
advantage is now threatened. This must be why you had to resort to such
statements like the one above ("You haven't read enough of it to have a
complete picture and seem to be struggling with the ``standardese'' language
which these standards are written in. Also, you are desperately trying to
interpret the wording in a way that salvages your case...")
In a way, that statement is a cheap trick, but understandable since your
real purpose is to gain acceptance as a guru. For me, I don't care - I have
no desire to be deemed a guru on the newsgroups (it serves no useful
purpose.)
I have openly admitted my mistakes here. Does that make me a bad engineer?
My guess is that you would rather lick a public toilet seat before you admit
specific mistakes. You may admit that you make mistakes in general, but you
will never share them with anyone because you feel it threatens your
acceptance and your self-esteem.
What started the "2nd phase" of this issue, is that another poster asked the
question whether we are talking about C or C++. I went back to the original
post and realized we should have been talking about C++. I paid $18 and
downloaded the current ANSI C++ standard from www.ansi.org.
Thinking the C++ standard would definitely prohibit void main(), I took one
look and saw the two prototypes for int main(...) and that was enough.
Later, I decided that I should familiarize myself with the C++ standard,
since it is the dominant language I use in my practice. Although I have
many great books on C++, as you stated before, they aren't the standard.
This lead up to reading the aforementioned section in it's entirety. I also
had colleagues at work read it, and they had the same interpretation.
I also sent the interpretation off to various computer science departments,
and to ANSI itself. As soon as I get those results in, I will post them.
After all the crap is pealed away, this should have been a discussion of
exploration, and not flexing of brain muscles and fighting for respect and
status. In recent studies in anthropology, I saw the same behavior in our
primate cousins. Perhaps we do have an evolutionary ancestor in common with
them after all. :)
-Mark
------------------------------
From: "flybird" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: process structure
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 10:59:06 +0800
hi,all
I am interesting in process structure. I noly have study elf format
through elf.ps but don't understand it too much. I hope to get more paper
about elf to study. And I would like to know how linux process is
implemented
according elf. I also would like to know how the process structure is
implemnted
on the i386 sturcutre, especially how the linux use the segment selector of
i386.
May someone point me some good paper about these question of the web?
thanx,
PanTao
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Mark Graybill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Mark Graybill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ANSI C & void main()
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 04:05:30 GMT
Erik Max Francis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>No. You are not reading it right.
>
> "It shall have a return type of int ..."
>
>main must return int. Period.
No, there wasn't a period, there was a ", but otherwise."
> "... but otherwise its type is implementation-defined."
>
>But main's argument list can be implementation-defined. That is, an
>ANSI-compliant C++ compiler must accept int main(void) and int main(int
>argc, char *argv[]). It can also accept other argument lists, _but it
>must return int_. This was clearly and explicitly stated by the
>Standard, but you missed it.
You have this flipped. A function's type and it's argument list are two
separate things. Also, main() cannot have other argument lists, which is
specified by the standard stating that main cannot be overloaded.
The "shall" is used instead of "must". Much could be read into this, and
judging by what all the compilers I use implement, the interprettation is
pretty common, which is that int type is the default and desired type. But
we are not debating this in our discussions.
Look at the sentence again:
"It shall have a return type of type int, but otherwise its type is
implementation�defined. All implementations
shall allow both of the following definitions of main: int main() { /* ...
*/ } and int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { /* ... */ }"
The but otherwise provides the exception to the return type of int. An
implementation (compiler) can choose other types of main. It does not
prohibit non-int types. I fail to understand why you cannot see this. If I
say the sky is blue, but otherwise it is a different color, doesn't say it
can only be blue.
>This is a red herring. It only applies given what the Standard has
>stated earlier -- namely, that main must return int. (Besides, a return
>0, implicit or not, at the end of a function which returns void is
>illegal -- another hint that you're reading this wrong.)
You can have a return statement without a value. I'm not interested in
hints, I am interested in what is obvious.
It takes some twisting to read it the way you do. I will admit I am reading
this incorrectly if the reply from ANSI states so, and I will openly publish
my error.
-Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Kimoto)
Subject: Re: ANSI C & void main()
Date: 14 May 2000 23:53:19 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <lkJT4.63469$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mark Graybill wrote:
> The facts are indisputable: The original poster posted the code: void
> main(){cout << "Hello world";} This is a C++ program, and one of my
> previous posts brings my realization of this to light. The current ANSI C++
> standard
In this thread, _you_ are the "original poster". Your posting
<L3LS4.58991$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> does not have any
"References:" in the header.
In <QaTS4.59706$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you appealed to
Dennis Ritchie as an authority. dmr is better known for C than C++.
If you are going to change languages, you should change "C" to "C++"
in the Subject. Surely your news client must have this capability.
--
Paul Kimoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Todd Knarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need input on developing a unified configuration program for linux
Date: 15 May 2000 04:18:55 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.system <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mongoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> transportability would be no issue. What does everyone else think of
> this idea? Any suggestions?
I would advise you look at RedHat's 'linuxconf' Web interface and
such before starting. This is not a new idea, it has it's merits,
but it has some problems as well:
1) One needs to have a seperate configuration program for the initial
installation, when the system has not been configured sufficiently
to run the Web server needed to process your CGI scripts/modules?
2) How does one configure systems that are not running a Web server at
all?
--
Collin was right. Never give a virus a missile launcher.
-- Erk, Reality Check #8
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David A. Lethe)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need input on developing a unified configuration program for linux
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 04:49:30 GMT
On Mon, 15 May 2000 01:57:58 GMT, Mongoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hello,
> I'm am currently developing a linux configuration program that
>will be designed to run on all distros for a college research project.
>It is to allow people to create modules for configuring different
>aspects of a linux os. Now these modules can be written in any
>language that can be executed on a system and use stdio. Now to use
>these modules I was thinking of having the modules create cgi forms
>using html. This would require the user to have a loopback connect and
>a web browser on their system, two very common and simple items for
>linux. The webrowser would load the html page, and send a cgi string
>back to the module and the module would edit the system based on the
>users input in the cgi string. Now I was wondering if most people
>agree with the idea of using a web browser for the system
>administration? I figure using html is a common way of implementing an
>interface that most people know. They wouldn't have to learn anything
>new in order to create a module for whatever they wish. Plus
>webbrowsers are available in almost every platform possible so
>transportability would be no issue. What does everyone else think of
>this idea? Any suggestions?
HTML is absolutely the way to go.
However ...
What happens if you want to change the IP number of your linux box?!!
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Mark Graybill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Mark Graybill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ANSI C & void main()
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 04:53:43 GMT
David Wragg wrote in message ...
>"Mark Graybill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "3 ... The linkage (3.5) of main is implementation�defined."
>>
>> There is no guideline of how main is linked to the calling code. For
>> instance, some crt0 code pushes and pops the return code off the stack.
>> Others saves the return code to a specified memory location. This is
>> defined by the implementation.
>
>That isn't what linkage means in "the standard" (ISO C++ 98). How can
>you expect to interpret any document correctly when you don't known
>what the words it uses mean?
>
I understand what linkage is. The overall effect of linkage is the
accessibility of declared objects to code, and although at the time I
thought I was just stretching the definition as an excuse for the purpose of
bringing to light how a compiler might implement paragraph 5, looking back
on it, I was in error.
Actually, since the term linkage is C & C++ language dependent, it has
nothing to do with how the calling code retrieves a return code - it's
simply the mechanism providing structure to the lifespan and accessibility
of objects to C/C++ statements.
Thanks for pointing this out. I need to proof before I post. :)
It seems to be common practice to make such statements as you did above (I
had one poster attack my English, citing I shouldn't be trusted around
computers because of it.) My purpose is not to win an argument, but rather
explore and report.
There is a flora of interpretations given so far, and although we each
believe our own to be true, I am waiting to get the official interpretation
from ANSI. When I receive my response from ANSI, I will post it.
-Mark
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Mark Graybill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Mark Graybill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ANSI C++ & void main()
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 04:55:25 GMT
Paul Kimoto wrote in message ...
>Dennis Ritchie as an authority. dmr is better known for C than C++.
>If you are going to change languages, you should change "C" to "C++"
>in the Subject. Surely your news client must have this capability.
Attention to details - a good quality to have. :)
We'll see if it works.
-Mark
------------------------------
From: "Reinhold J. Gerharz" <PostNoEmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.install
Subject: Kernel panic: aic7xxx: unrecoverable BRKADRINT. In swapper task - not syncing.
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 01:07:17 -0400
The above is the error I get on the first screen when trying to install Red
Hat Linux 6.2
Any ideas what it means?
Thanks!
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.development.system) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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-Development-System Digest
******************************
