i was gonna suggest as per rob's post that chan.c was a good place to check
for gcc introduced code. anyone actually going to diff the code or is it
all going to be speculation?
brucee
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 9:01 PM, st...@quintile.net st...@quintile.net
wrote:
if there was a way to run
I've never understood the fascination with gdb. To me it's just turgid.
I like saying acid has always worked for me because it's a fun thing to
say but not only is it painlessly useful it is programmable. stk and leak
are pretty neat.
brucee
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 5:52 AM, erik quanstrom
Who claimed fast compilation was a motive?
From what I understand this is all about being able to use gdb for debugging.
It makes sense to me, but it might still be subjective.
If you care I will explain my experience:
Some longer time ago I tried gdb for disassembling some secret binary,
but
Hm, that looks interesting. I like what that they are trying to make plan 9 a
bit
more accessible by using familiar programs and closing the gap between modern
unix
and the plan 9 ideas. However, I think I'll rather keep vanilla plan 9 or 9front
(rio is still better than X11, sorry).
But
Maybe I am working on a port to X-Gene, or maybe I am not.
--
Aram Hăvărneanu
On 26 July 2015 at 18:33, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
if fast compilation is a feature over plan 9, I'd like to see some
numbers.
That wasn't the point, I think. The mention of speed was rather that on
fast enough hardware the speed with gcc isn't that bad,
so you can use
just speaking for myself, I found the fact that plan 9 was a self contained thing to be a must have. i don't consider the gcc toolchain to be a feature.
if "fast compilation" is a feature over plan 9, I'd like to see some numbers.
- erik
On Jul 25, 2015 3:15 PM, Axel Belinfante
On July 26, 2015 1:32:35 PM CDT, Sergey Zhilkin szhil...@gmail.com wrote:
To expensive for me, And, imo, device is useless
- no wired network
- no NORMAL external storage
- iNtel inside :)
As a terminal it is far more expensive then Rpi, as diskless cpu it
useless
too.
Useless :) for me
P.S.:
On July 26, 2015 2:48:33 PM CDT, Prof Brucee prof.bru...@gmail.com wrote:
A bit harsh and head-up-the-arse-ish. I'm willing to play with this
device.
Harsh? I put a smiley face to make it obvious it was a joke...
Enjoy your Mac.
brucee
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 5:32 AM, Ryan Gonzalez
why is devmnt using msize-IOHDRSZ to split up reads and writes instead
of the iounit of the channel?
mntrdwr():
...
nr = n;
if(nr m-msize-IOHDRSZ)
nr = m-msize-IOHDRSZ;
r-request.count = nr;
--
cinap
This would appear to be in error. Rob, please?
brucee
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 9:24 AM, cinap_len...@felloff.net wrote:
why is devmnt using msize-IOHDRSZ to split up reads and writes instead
of the iounit of the channel?
mntrdwr():
...
nr = n;
if(nr
You forgot about my favorite use of gdb:
$ gdb --args a b c
gdb run
# wait for segfault
gdb bt
...
gdb quit
On July 26, 2015 12:54:34 PM CDT, hiro 23h...@gmail.com wrote:
Who claimed fast compilation was a motive?
From what I understand this is all about being able to use gdb for
debugging.
It
To expensive for me, And, imo, device is useless
- no wired network
- no NORMAL external storage
- iNtel inside :)
As a terminal it is far more expensive then Rpi, as diskless cpu it useless
too.
Useless :) for me
P.S.: Yes my home mac uses Intel CPU, but it is Apple ! :)
2015-07-26 0:37
wrong list? ;-)
On Jul 26, 2015 1:47 PM, hiro 23h...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to argue from a Linux point of view.
14 matches
Mail list logo
