On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 02:24:04PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday 16 December 2005 05:19 pm, Wojciech A. Koszek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 11:14:12AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday 16 December 2005 04:10 am, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On Thu, 2005-Dec-15 22:37:45 +, Wojciech
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 11:14:12AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday 16 December 2005 04:10 am, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On Thu, 2005-Dec-15 22:37:45 +, Wojciech A. Koszek wrote:
abort2(const char *why, int nargs, void **args);
why is reason of program abort, nargs is number of
On Friday 16 December 2005 05:19 pm, Wojciech A. Koszek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 11:14:12AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday 16 December 2005 04:10 am, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On Thu, 2005-Dec-15 22:37:45 +, Wojciech A. Koszek wrote:
abort2(const char *why, int nargs, void
On Fri, 2005-Dec-16 00:17:14 +0100, Václav Haisman wrote:
I would like to comment on FreeBSD style(9) a bit.
That is a different bikeshed. If, taking into account the other
comments in this thread, you believe that you can justify changes to
style(9), please start a new thread - probably in
On Thu, 2005-Dec-15 22:37:45 +, Wojciech A. Koszek wrote:
abort2(const char *why, int nargs, void **args);
why is reason of program abort, nargs is number of arguments
passed in args. Both why and args (with %p format) will be
printed via log(9). Sample output:
[..]
pid 3004 abort2
On Friday 16 December 2005 04:10 am, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On Thu, 2005-Dec-15 22:37:45 +, Wojciech A. Koszek wrote:
abort2(const char *why, int nargs, void **args);
why is reason of program abort, nargs is number of arguments
passed in args. Both why and args (with %p format) will be
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 08:10:57PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On Thu, 2005-Dec-15 22:37:45 +, Wojciech A. Koszek wrote:
abort2(const char *why, int nargs, void **args);
why is reason of program abort, nargs is number of arguments
passed in args. Both why and args (with %p format)
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 11:14:12AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday 16 December 2005 04:10 am, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On Thu, 2005-Dec-15 22:37:45 +, Wojciech A. Koszek wrote:
abort2(const char *why, int nargs, void **args);
why is reason of program abort, nargs is number of
(discussed task was picked from Poul-Henning Kamp's TODO list)
Hackers,
I've implemented abort2() system call. Works just like abort(3), but
delivers signal reliably. Here is a prototype:
abort2(const char *why, int nargs, void **args);
why is reason of program abort, nargs is number of
Wojciech A. Koszek wrote:
[...]
Comments are welcome!
As for the patch, the use of do {} while(0) instead of goto looks odd to me.
I would like to comment on FreeBSD style(9) a bit. Why does not mention
or even encourage C99 style // comments? They are nice when one wants to
comment out bigger
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:17:14AM +0100, Václav Haisman wrote:
I would like to comment on FreeBSD style(9) a bit. Why does not mention
or even encourage C99 style // comments? They are nice when one wants to
comment out bigger chunks of code with /**/ comment.
Use #if 0 ... #endif for that.
I would like to comment on FreeBSD style(9) a bit. Why does not mention
or even encourage C99 style // comments? They are nice when one wants to
comment out bigger chunks of code with /**/ comment.
Too new. /**/ comment out is bogus anyway. #if 0 ... #endif is better.
On the similar note,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Warner Losh writes:
On the similar note, the ability to move declarations closer to the
point of use in code is IMO nice feature, too. The style(9) doesn't
mention this either.
C doesn't allow it, or didn't until recently. That style tends to
lead to really
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:17:14AM +0100, Václav Haisman wrote:
I would like to comment on FreeBSD style(9) a bit. Why does not mention
or even encourage C99 style // comments? They are nice when one wants to
comment out bigger chunks of code with /**/ comment.
Use
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Warner Losh writes:
On the similar note, the ability to move declarations closer to the
point of use in code is IMO nice feature, too. The style(9) doesn't
mention this either.
C doesn't allow it, or didn't until recently. That style
Also, it tends to make it harder to judge the amount of stackspace
a function uses, something which is not entirely uninteresting in
kernel programming.
While it might be harder to get estimate of stack space allocation I
suspect it could actually lower the allocation.
Maybe, maybe not.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:17:14AM +0100, Václav Haisman wrote:
Wojciech A. Koszek wrote:
[...]
Comments are welcome!
As for the patch, the use of do {} while(0) instead of goto looks odd to me.
This can be changed easily in final version of the patch if needed.
I would like to comment
17 matches
Mail list logo
