At 1223719744 time_t, Konstantin wrote:
> I must apologize.
Don't, no one died in the process. ;)
--
Julien Danjou
// ᐰ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://julien.danjou.info
// 9A0D 5FD9 EB42 22F6 8974 C95C A462 B51E C2FE E5CD
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
I must apologize.
Actually I'm not one that "making your WM", I'm a user
and I must admit my C-skills are not that good,
but I'm learning, and I'm learning by trying to
track down & eliminate bugs in awesome I could find.
Anyway all patches goes through Julien.
Thanks for explanations :)
They wa
At 1223717790 time_t, dante4d wrote:
> I hope Julien meant that increment size of char * and char ** differ - their
> sizeof are the same!!!
So increment are the same.
Well that probably what I meant, but I was maybe not clear.
> Because char * points to char, but char ** points to
> char * - in
At 1223718030 time_t, Konstantin wrote:
> I wonder, what's wrong with the rest of my test?
I meant more "useless" than wrong.
Well, the backtrace was not that useful without -O0 (and -fno-inline
probably) and without some printing. :)
--
Julien Danjou
// ᐰ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://julien.dan
I wonder, what's wrong with the rest of my test?
Just for self-debugging.
Crash is *real* anyway, and I'm not sure if my patch is correct.
Julien Danjou wrote:
At 1223714578 time_t, Konstantin wrote:
#include
int main (int argc, char* argv[])
{
printf("sizeof(char*) = %d\n", sizeof(cha
You guys are tough to follow :)
#include
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
char *a = "aaa";
char *b = "bbb";
char *p[] = { a, b };
char **pp = p;
printf("%p, %p\n", a, pp);
printf("%p, %p\n", a+1, pp+1);
printf("%d, %d, %d\n", sizeof(char*), sizeof(char**), sizeof(c
At 1223714578 time_t, Konstantin wrote:
> #include
> int main (int argc, char* argv[])
> {
> printf("sizeof(char*) = %d\n", sizeof(char*));
> }
That's obviously proving that the size of char * and char ** differs.
Unfortunately, the rest of your tests and patches are totally wrong
also.
Pa
Hehe, I just wanted to write that pointer++ is the same as
pointer+=sizeof(pointer)... That's a C/C++ trait.
http://www.cplusplus.com/doc/tutorial/pointers.html
Pointer arithmetics
To conduct arithmetical operations on pointers is a little different than to
conduct them on regular integer data ty
No, after some tests I came to conclusion you are right:
buf++ and buf+=sizeof(char*) is the same for me too.
But still awesome crashes for me some time,
and when I patched it with the very first patch I posted
in the thread I managed to run awesome smoothly.
I'm confused. Stopped any patch acti
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:p0~% uname -a
FreeBSD knote 7.1-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 7.1-PRERELEASE #13:
Wed Sep 17 18:06:30 EEST 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/KNOTE i386
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:p0~% awesome -version
awesome (awesome) v3.0-156-gede
At 1223675544 time_t, Konstantin wrote:
> b/c the original one increases increases buf (of type char**)
> by one, while it should be increased by sizeof(char*) to move
> to the next pointer in array.
Hu?
In my world it seems that both have the same size.
Can you give me an example of the value you
Effectively a_strsplit returns pointer to an array of pointers
to char.
luaa.c uses it to parse xdg_config_path using statement:
for (buf = xdg_files; *buf; buf++)
I managed to crash awesome (SEGFAILT) by setting XDG_CONFIG_DIRS:
this line should be
for (buf = xdg_files; *buf; buf += sizeof(c
12 matches
Mail list logo
