All functional parts are done (unless I forgot something..)
patch for /etc is included (against CURRENT), and tested on my laptop.
In my case, with rcexecr and the patch, the time for launching rc.d
scripts reduces from 35s to 26s.
manpage is updated, but I think my English needs some fix :p
On Tue, 31 May 2011, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
I am looking into potentially MFC'ing r212367 and related, that adds drains
to sbufs. The reason for MFC is that several pieces of new code in CURRENT
are using the drain functionality and it would make MFCing those changes
much easier.
The
On 05/06/2011 06:03, Warner Losh wrote:
I'd add them for all !_LP64 architectures: arm, mips o32, mips n32, i386, and
powerpc...
Forgive the stupid question, but ... add them to what?
Warner
On Jun 4, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Ben Laurie wrote:
It turns out that both clang and gcc define
On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:13 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
On 05/06/2011 06:03, Warner Losh wrote:
I'd add them for all !_LP64 architectures: arm, mips o32, mips n32, i386,
and powerpc...
Forgive the stupid question, but ... add them to what?
If they aren't already defined by the compilers, those
So, for example int64_t has no printf modifier I am aware of. Likewise
its many friends.
In the past I've handled this by having a define somewhere along the
lines of...
#if something
# define INT_64_T_FMT %ld
#else
# define INT_64_T_FMT %lld
#endif
but I have no idea where to put such a thing
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Ben Laurie wrote:
So, for example int64_t has no printf modifier I am aware of. Likewise
its many friends.
In the past I've handled this by having a define somewhere along the
lines of...
#if something
# define INT_64_T_FMT %ld
#else
# define INT_64_T_FMT %lld
#endif
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Ben Laurie b...@links.org wrote:
So, for example int64_t has no printf modifier I am aware of. Likewise
its many friends.
The worse option is to use the C99 defines, like PRI64 and PRI64U.
The better option is to use %jd / %ju and cast the value to
[u]intmax_t.
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 02:31:27PM -0400, Sean C. Farley wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Ben Laurie wrote:
So, for example int64_t has no printf modifier I am aware of. Likewise
its many friends.
In the past I've handled this by having a define somewhere along the
lines of...
#if
In message 4debc741.1020...@links.org, Ben Laurie writes:
So, for example int64_t has no printf modifier I am aware of. Likewise
its many friends.
but I have no idea where to put such a thing in FreeBSD. Opinions?
I have totally given up on this mess.
At best you get incredibly messy source
on 03/06/2011 19:28 Jung-uk Kim said the following:
Unlike Intel, AMD did not guarantee all TSCs reset to zero with RESET
IPI before Bulldozer[1]. In fact, I tried to measure deltas between
cores when I started hacking on it using some crude heuristics,
somewhat like the OpenSolaris
On 05/06/2011 19:21, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 4debc741.1020...@links.org, Ben Laurie writes:
So, for example int64_t has no printf modifier I am aware of. Likewise
its many friends.
but I have no idea where to put such a thing in FreeBSD. Opinions?
I have totally given up on
On 05/06/2011 19:31, Sean C. Farley wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Ben Laurie wrote:
So, for example int64_t has no printf modifier I am aware of. Likewise
its many friends.
In the past I've handled this by having a define somewhere along the
lines of...
#if something
# define INT_64_T_FMT
In message 4debe469.5060...@links.org, Ben Laurie writes:
On 05/06/2011 19:21, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 4debc741.1020...@links.org, Ben Laurie writes:
I have therefore resorted to printf'ing any typedefed integer type using
%jd and an explicit cast to (intmax_t):
On 05/06/2011 21:42, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 4debe469.5060...@links.org, Ben Laurie writes:
On 05/06/2011 19:21, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message 4debc741.1020...@links.org, Ben Laurie writes:
I have therefore resorted to printf'ing any typedefed integer type using
%jd and an
In message 4debf0e7.3040...@links.org, Ben Laurie writes:
I note that you didn't react to my other wherein you cast from known
type A to known type B. I supposed it would be smart to also assert that
the cast was non-narrowing.
Well, if casting to intmax_t is narrowing I think I have bigger
15 matches
Mail list logo
