On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 11:03:47PM -0500 I heard the voice of
Jim Durham, and lo! it spake thus:
Is this Mission Impossible? I have no one at the site that can do this.
If I say make installworld is the whole thing going to come to a
grinding halt?
When I did a 2.2.8-STABLE to 4.3-STABLE
At 7:48 Uhr +0100 05.03.2002, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
PS: I am more interested in mpeg1 than DivX because with mpeg1 the
stream can be watched as it is being made.
Would it help to hint it on the fly like it is done with mpeg4ip ?
H.
Btw, mpeg4ip did not compile here, 4.4 R, saw it
Hi folks,
Please review attached patch, which adds long overdue feature to our
loader(8), allowing it to load sequence of files as a single object.
This should allow us to lift 1.44M limit on compressed kernel for the
installation diskette. Please note, that to use this feature to load
Dear Sir/Madam,
Many
of us who came to work in the sciences or similar areas did so because we wanted
to explore the unknown and gain more knowledge and ultimately make this world a
better place. It is undoubtedly
true that modern science has brought immense benefits to humanity
On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Patrick Thomas wrote:
In my kernel, I have:
maxusers128
pseudo-device pty 128
Not sure if the above steps are actually required. Actually, neither
matter. I duplicated your steps anyway, and was greeted with the same
messages.
However,
In
Hello,
I have a small problem. I work for software development company and
write daemons and console tools for Unix. My boss wants everything
to be written in C++, because he thinks C++ is cool. I prefer C
for such tasks, but I cannot really put good arguments of why and
where C++ can be worse
Running FreeBSD 4.5 and it keeps rebooting around the same time late during the night.
Here's the kernel panic message:
Mar 5 03:04:03 predator /kernel:
Mar 5 03:04:03 predator /kernel:
Mar 5 03:04:03 predator /kernel: Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode
Mar 5 03:04:03 predator
dp *confused*
Read URL:http://www.daemonnews.org/199902/answerman.html#ptys, I'm
always running out of xterms because I have too many pseduo-ttys
open. How can I increase my number of ptys? article at DaemonNews.
You may find an example to create more ptys with MAKEDEV.
-- -
Makoto `MAR'
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 09:20:14AM -0500, ICA Canada Online wrote:
Running FreeBSD 4.5 and it keeps rebooting around the same time late during the
night.
You are probably using an out of date kernel module. Use ls -l
/modules to check the modules were all installed at the same time
as the
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 05:07:12PM +0300, Eugene L. Vorokov wrote:
Hello,
I have a small problem. I work for software development company and
write daemons and console tools for Unix. My boss wants everything
to be written in C++, because he thinks C++ is cool. I prefer C
for such tasks,
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Eugene L. Vorokov wrote:
ELVI have a small problem. I work for software development company and
ELVwrite daemons and console tools for Unix. My boss wants everything
ELVto be written in C++, because he thinks C++ is cool. I prefer C
ELVfor such tasks, but I cannot really put
did u do a config -r on your kernel config file? if not it might not pick
up some of the new stuff.
Ken
On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Geoff Mohler wrote:
Ok..dumb question alert. (fair warning)
I just did a 4.3 to 4.5 upgrade, and made sure the sys source was upgraded
as well.
Went in, and did a
In a message written on Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 07:52:09AM -0600, Paul Halliday wrote:
pty*)
class=`expr $i : 'pty\(.*\)'`
case $class in
0) offset=0 name=p;;
1) offset=32 name=q;;
2) offset=64 name=r;;
3) offset=96 name=s;;
interestingly
I have a small problem. I work for software development company and
write daemons and console tools for Unix. My boss wants everything to be
written in C++, because he thinks C++ is cool. I prefer C for such
tasks, but I cannot really put good arguments of why and where C++ can
be worse than
On 05-Mar-02 Maxim Sobolev wrote:
Hi folks,
Please review attached patch, which adds long overdue feature to our
loader(8), allowing it to load sequence of files as a single object.
This should allow us to lift 1.44M limit on compressed kernel for the
installation diskette. Please note,
My main problem with C++ is that it adds a lot of overhead, and it's slow.
Well written C++ code can be very fast, have a look at
http://osl.iu.edu/~tveldhui/papers/Expression-Templates/exprtmpl.html
and
http://osl.iu.edu/~tveldhui/papers/Template-Metaprograms/meta-art.html
and
Honestly, there are differences but both are tools to get the job done.
Why you use both are really up to you since it depends if your shop
wants object oriented programming for maintenance and troubleshooting.
I had this happen when dealing with Ada vs. C++ vs. C. The programmers
didn't want to
No, I didnt. Thanks! Will do that and report back.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Kenneth Culver wrote:
did u do a config -r on your kernel config file? if not it might not pick
up some of the new stuff.
Ken
On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Geoff Mohler wrote:
Ok..dumb question alert. (fair warning)
The code itself may be fast, but programs written in c++ tend to link to a
lot of shared libs, which in itself can be pretty slow.
Ken
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Martin Ankerl wrote:
My main problem with C++ is that it adds a lot of overhead, and it's slow.
Well written C++ code can be very fast,
I take a simplistic view after years of C++.
C++ is good for large projects that need to be maintained into the future.
Then the advantages of OO starts to kick in. For small projects that won't
change much then C is the better choice IMO.
Second is size, C will generate smaller executables.
Kenneth Culver writes:
The code itself may be fast, but programs written in c++ tend to link to a
lot of shared libs, which in itself can be pretty slow.
That's *not* unique to C++. On my machine, /usr/lib contains
73 shared libs, and these are mainly C libraries.
If you
No, still have this from uname -a:
4.3-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.3-RELEASE #3:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Kenneth Culver wrote:
did u do a config -r on your kernel config file? if not it might not pick
up some of the new stuff.
Ken
On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Geoff Mohler wrote:
Ok..dumb question alert.
On Tuesday 05 March 2002 11:28 am, Kenneth Mays wrote:
Fact is, managers may understand that the code in C++ is easier to read and
maintain.
This I must disagree with. Most of the time, I think that C++ is harder to
read *and* maintain. Well-written C++ is probably easier to read and
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kenneth Culver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: I have a small problem. I work for software development company and
: write daemons and console tools for Unix. My boss wants everything to be
: written in C++, because he thinks C++ is cool. I prefer C for
On March 05, 2002 at 08:37, Steve B. wrote:
I take a simplistic view after years of C++.
C++ is good for large projects that need to be maintained into the future.
Then the advantages of OO starts to kick in. For small projects that won't
change much then C is the better choice IMO.
My 2
John Baldwin wrote:
On 05-Mar-02 Maxim Sobolev wrote:
Hi folks,
Please review attached patch, which adds long overdue feature to our
loader(8), allowing it to load sequence of files as a single object.
This should allow us to lift 1.44M limit on compressed kernel for the
C++ doesn't add noticable overhead and isn't slow, unless you are a
dumbass about how you write it. All languages give you plenty of ways
to write speghetti fortran code :-). C++ gives you a number of ways
to obfuscate.
I hate to enter such a fray, but I can pass on my experience
Eugene L. Vorokov wrote:
I have a small problem. I work for software development company and
write daemons and console tools for Unix. My boss wants everything
to be written in C++, because he thinks C++ is cool. I prefer C
for such tasks, but I cannot really put good arguments of why and
ICA Canada Online wrote:
Running FreeBSD 4.5 and it keeps rebooting around the same time
late during the night.
Here's the kernel panic message:
[ ... ]
Any ideas?
I don't see the output of the ps you typed at the
debugger prompt to see what process was running at the
time of the panic.
Kenneth Culver wrote:
My main problem with C++ is that it adds a lot of overhead, and it's slow.
Also, it drives me nuts when people code in C++ and write all kinds of
classes when using classes for certain things just doesn't make sense, and
makes the code much more convoluted.
This is a
Running FreeBSD 4.5 and it keeps rebooting around the same time
late during the night.
had two similar problem's
#1, client computer, 4:59pm every weekday, rebooted.
Seems luser plugged their POSTAGE METER into same UPS as the computer
4:59pm, luser gets up and 'stamps' today's outgoing
Steve B. wrote:
I take a simplistic view after years of C++.
C++ is good for large projects that need to be maintained into the future.
Then the advantages of OO starts to kick in. For small projects that won't
change much then C is the better choice IMO.
Wow. Forgot this disadvantage of
It actually did a jmp 0
(or call 0)
do you have any out-of date modules loaded?
maybe an out of date firewall module?
(it happens when you are doing some firewall code)
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, ICA Canada Online wrote:
Running FreeBSD 4.5 and it keeps rebooting around the same time late during
On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 05:21:08PM -0700, Doug Russell wrote:
On Sun, 3 Mar 2002, Volker Sturm wrote:
I want to write a driver for a device on the serial port. The problem is
that I dont get any info on the protocol that is used for data
..
there already? If not, are there ways to analyze
Well, that too, I guess I was just using KDE as an example of something
being extremely slow due to a lot of libs being loaded.
Ken
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Raymond Wiker wrote:
Kenneth Culver writes:
The code itself may be fast, but programs written in c++ tend to link to a
lot of shared
How exactly did you upgrade? did you cvsup your sourcecode and then
recompile from there?
Ken
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Geoff Mohler wrote:
No, still have this from uname -a:
4.3-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.3-RELEASE #3:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Kenneth Culver wrote:
did u do a config -r on your kernel
I think what I was trying to say is that a lot of C++ programmers will
obfuscate their code by using features of the language that don't fit with
what they were trying to accomplish.
Ken
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kenneth Culver [EMAIL
This is a serious concern for console tools, which are interacting with
humans, which are capable of providing commands much faster than a
1.5GHz processor can accept and dispose of them... sorry I missed this
downside in my first response.
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not,
Why are you being so sarcastic? Everyone here is assuming that it's harder
to write C++ code, so you should only use it if necessary. It isn't
necessary to use it for something like a daemon.
Ken
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
Steve B. wrote:
I take a simplistic view after years
On Tuesday 05 March 2002 09:07 am, Eugene L. Vorokov wrote:
Hello,
I have a small problem. I work for software development company and
write daemons and console tools for Unix. My boss wants everything
to be written in C++, because he thinks C++ is cool. I prefer C
for such tasks, but I
The quest continues...
Just another blurb...
The paradigm shift in all of this is what the theories and beliefs fabled
around C++ have surmounted from debate after many years. C++ is an OO based
language and falls under the reasoning of of use that other OO languages
fall under. Not because
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Scheidell cleopede:
Running FreeBSD 4.5 and it keeps rebooting around the same time
late during the night.
had two similar problem's
#1, client computer, 4:59pm every weekday, rebooted.
Seems luser plugged their POSTAGE METER into same UPS as the
On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
Mark Murray wrote:
But, back to the topic. We have taken the OpenBSD driver for the
RNG on the i810 chipset (and some other i8x0 chipsets), and ported it to
FreeBSD-4.4. We made some enhancements to get more of the available random
On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Sam Leffler (at Usenix) wrote:
But, back to the topic. We have taken the OpenBSD driver for the
RNG on the i810 chipset (and some other i8x0 chipsets), and ported it to
FreeBSD-4.4. We made some enhancements to get more of the available
random
data bandwidth.
I
At 5:07 PM +0300 3/5/02, Eugene L. Vorokov wrote:
Hello,
I have a small problem. I work for software development company and
write daemons and console tools for Unix. My boss wants everything
to be written in C++, because he thinks C++ is cool. I prefer C
for such tasks, but I cannot really put
I wouldn't say C++ is THAT much harder to write, it does have a steeper
initial learning curve than C. Most of that is due to needing to learn OOP
at the same time. It is easier for C++ to come back and bite you than C if
you don't spend enough time up front in design. IMO the biggest problem is
The following is the largest part of the audit trail of PR docs/28555.
At the end of the audit trail, Dima Dorfman asked Mike Meyer to seek review
and comments from a wider audience than -doc. Since this documentation PR
has been open for quit some time now, I'm posting the patch the PR was
Kenneth Culver wrote:
This is a serious concern for console tools, which are interacting with
humans, which are capable of providing commands much faster than a
1.5GHz processor can accept and dispose of them... sorry I missed this
downside in my first response.
I'm not sure if you
Kenneth Culver wrote:
Why are you being so sarcastic? Everyone here is assuming that it's harder
to write C++ code, so you should only use it if necessary. It isn't
necessary to use it for something like a daemon.
Because that underlying assumption is false, and I'm making
fun of it.
If you
I am doing some raw I/O test on a seagate SCSI disk running FreeBSD 4.5.
This situation is like this:
+-++++++++++---+--
| |||||||||| |
+-++++++++++---+--
more writes fit in the disk's write cache?
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
I am doing some raw I/O test on a seagate SCSI disk running FreeBSD 4.5.
This situation is like this:
+-++++++++++---+--
| ||||||
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
Read the man page to try and decide if you should write if (x) or
if (x != 0).
Fix:
Apply the attached page to the style(9) man page.
[...]
the one that I stop to think about is:
if (!(flags FLAGSET))
or should that be
if
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Julian Elischer wrote:
more writes fit in the disk's write cache?
For (1), it writes 15000 * 8192 bytes in all. For (2), it writes 15000 *
4096 bytes in all (assuming the random number distributes evenly between 0
and 8192). So your suggestion does not make sense to
On the subject of Re: Realtime video capture/divx encoding (brooktree) beta
testers required, Heiko Recktenwald stated:
At 7:48 Uhr +0100 05.03.2002, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
PS: I am more interested in mpeg1 than DivX because with mpeg1 the
stream can be watched as it is being made.
Because that underlying assumption is false, and I'm making
fun of it.
Well, that in itself is wrong. C++ code IS harder to write and write
correctly and effeciently, as I would assume it is for any OO language.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but generally speaking based on the Open
source
At 16:03 5-3-2002 -0500, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Julian Elischer wrote:
more writes fit in the disk's write cache?
For (1), it writes 15000 * 8192 bytes in all. For (2), it writes 15000 *
4096 bytes in all (assuming the random number distributes evenly between 0
and
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 04:43:22PM -0500, Kenneth Culver wrote:
Because that underlying assumption is false, and I'm making
fun of it.
Well, that in itself is wrong. C++ code IS harder to write and write
correctly and effeciently, as I would assume it is for any OO language.
I'm not
The machine has 128M memory. I am doing physical I/O one block at a time,
so there should be no memory copy.
-Zhihui
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
At 16:03 5-3-2002 -0500, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Julian Elischer wrote:
more writes fit in the
Ok, see the point is, I have _already done this_
sh MAKEDEV pty0 # 0-31
sh MAKEDEV pty1 # 32-63
sh MAKEDEV pty2 # 64-95
sh MAKEDEV pty3 # 96-127
sh MAKEDEV pty4 # 128-159 xterm won't recognize by default
sh MAKEDEV pty5 # 160-191 xterm won't recognize by default
sh MAKEDEV
Patrick Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. Does each jail need to have its own proc filesystem mounted?
No, procfs is pretty much useless these days (except for truss).
2. Does kern.maxproc scale in a linear fashion with maxusers ?
The default value for kern.maxproc is 20 + 16 * maxusers.
I agree that it's probably caching at some level. You're only writing
about 120MB of data (and half that in your second case). Bump these to a
couple of GB and see what happens.
Also, could you post your actual measurements?
Lars
Zhihui Zhang wrote:
The machine has 128M memory. I am doing
Well, the core of my program is as follows (RANDOM(x) return a value
between 0 and x):
blocksize = 8192;
write_size_low = 512;
time(time1);
for (i = 0; i write_count; i++) {
write_size = write_size_low +
Zhihui Zhang wrote:
Well, the core of my program is as follows (RANDOM(x) return a value
between 0 and x):
blocksize = 8192;
write_size_low = 512;
time(time1);
for (i = 0; i write_count; i++) {
write_size = write_size_low +
Several times slower! The point is that writing less data performs
worse. So I call it weird.
-Zhihui
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Lars Eggert wrote:
Zhihui Zhang wrote:
Well, the core of my program is as follows (RANDOM(x) return a value
between 0 and x):
blocksize = 8192;
On 2002-03-05 12:10, Steve B. wrote:
I wouldn't say C++ is THAT much harder to write, it does have a steeper
initial learning curve than C. Most of that is due to needing to learn OOP
at the same time.
A point which is made irrelevant if you want to make a comparison of
the learning curves,
[ Top-posting edited off. Please, try to avoid top-posting. ]
On 2002-03-05 13:25, Kenneth Culver wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
Steve B. wrote:
I take a simplistic view after years of C++.
C++ is good for large projects that need to be maintained into the future.
Zhihui Zhang wrote:
Several times slower! The point is that writing less data performs
worse. So I call it weird.
Huh? You originally said:
(1) Write each block fully and sequentially, ie. 8192 bytes.
(2) I still write these blocks sequentially, but for each block I only
write part of
Wait a minute, you are saying that it takes longer to write the incomplete
blocks?
Doc
At 18:19 5-3-2002 -0500, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
Several times slower! The point is that writing less data performs
worse. So I call it weird.
-Zhihui
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I apologize for all who have followed this. I made a typo in the original
email. What I observed is that writing LESS performs WORSE. Since all
blocks are laid out contiguously and I write them sequentially, there
should not be any seek problem. I have modified the kernel in
kern_physio.c and
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Lars Eggert wrote:
Zhihui Zhang wrote:
Several times slower! The point is that writing less data performs
worse. So I call it weird.
Huh? You originally said:
(1) Write each block fully and sequentially, ie. 8192 bytes.
(2) I still write these blocks
We did make some enhancements that serve our needs, but may not be
best for everyone. We actually need entropy in quantity since we could be
doing a lot of crypto operations back to back and it can easily become our
worst bottleneck.
Have you looked at the Yarrow algorithm?
To
On 2002-03-05 12:59, Julian Elischer wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
Read the man page to try and decide if you should write if (x) or
if (x != 0).
Fix:
Apply the attached page to the style(9) man page.
[...]
the one that I stop to think about
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 10:13:50PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
-Don't use '!' for tests unless it's a boolean, e.g. use
+For tests, always compare the value to the appropriate 0 instead of
+checking it directly, unless the value is a boolean.
+For pointers, use:
+.Bd -literal
+if
msg.pgp
Description: PGP message
[ moved to -chat ]
Because that underlying assumption is false, and I'm making
fun of it.
Well, that in itself is wrong. C++ code IS harder to write and write
correctly and effeciently, as I would assume it is for any OO language.
Not so. Having done C professionally for umpteen years,
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Brian T.Schellenberger wrote:
On Tuesday 05 March 2002 06:29 pm, Julian Elischer wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Lars Eggert wrote:
Zhihui Zhang wrote:
Several times slower! The point is that writing less data performs
worse. So I call it weird.
Huh? You
I do agree that when the extra features of C++ are used this often
results in bloated programs but this can at least in part be blamed on
insufficiently skilled programmers.
Note that C++ is not really an OO language. It is probably better to
call it a language with support for
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 02:52:41AM -0500, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Julian Elischer wrote:
I have been speaking with the author.
he is adding a BSD copyright.
also he says we can KNFify (style(9)ify?) as it doesn't have to remain
compatible with anything else.
It
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 02:08:07AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2002-03-05 15:58, David O'Brien wrote:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 10:13:50PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
-Don't use '!' for tests unless it's a boolean, e.g. use
+For tests, always compare the value to the
Takanori Watanabe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, I had trouble with unionfs when it calles getcwd(3) when
I mount some directory on the directry in same file system,like
mount -t union /usr/home/foo/bar /usr/src/sys/ .
I investigate the problem by inserting debug print in getcwd.c.
Then I
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
The steeper learning curve of C++ is indeed steeper, not because of
some magic property of the object-oriented programming paradigm, but
because there are a lot more things to learn, before a complete
program can be written, IMHO.
Uh... Hello World looks the same in
On Tuesday 05 March 2002 06:29 pm, Julian Elischer wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Lars Eggert wrote:
Zhihui Zhang wrote:
Several times slower! The point is that writing less data performs
worse. So I call it weird.
Huh? You originally said:
(1) Write each block fully and
Brian T.Schellenberger wrote:
On Tuesday 05 March 2002 03:26 pm, Terry Lambert wrote:
Kenneth Culver wrote:
Why are you being so sarcastic? Everyone here is assuming that it's
harder to write C++ code, so you should only use it if necessary. It
isn't necessary to use it for something
Kenneth Culver wrote:
Because that underlying assumption is false, and I'm making
fun of it.
Well, that in itself is wrong. C++ code IS harder to write and write
correctly and effeciently, as I would assume it is for any OO language.
C++ is not an O-O language. It is a language based on
Patrick Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. Does each jail need to have its own proc filesystem mounted?
No, procfs is pretty much useless these days (except for truss).
In 4.5, won't `ps` (and perhaps other apps) not work for people in a jail
if their jail does not have a proc file system
On Tuesday 05 March 2002 07:15 pm, Terry Lambert wrote:
Kenneth Culver wrote:
I'm not saying it can't be done, but generally speaking based on the Open
source and commercial products I've seen, the ones that are written in
C++ suffer from more bloat and run slower.
A trout is a fish.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but generally speaking based on the Open
source and commercial products I've seen, the ones that are written in C++
suffer from more bloat and run slower.
A trout is a fish.
Therefore all fish are trout.
I think you just failed set theory... ;^).
Uhh,
On Tuesday 05 March 2002 06:32 pm, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
I apologize for all who have followed this. I made a typo in the original
email. What I observed is that writing LESS performs WORSE. Since all
blocks are laid out contiguously and I write them sequentially, there
should not be any seek
On Tuesday 05 March 2002 08:10 pm, Terry Lambert wrote:
| Brian T.Schellenberger wrote:
| On Tuesday 05 March 2002 03:26 pm, Terry Lambert wrote:
| Kenneth Culver wrote:
|Why are you being so sarcastic? Everyone here is assuming that it's
|harder to write C++ code, so you should only
please add me too
_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 12:41:20PM +0800, David Xu wrote:
could anyone remove a blank line in /sys/kern/kern_sysctl.c ?
in FreeBSD 4.5 STABLE, it's at line 151, function sysctl_ctx_init().
Uh.. why?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body
I'm not currently subscribed to this list, so please cc replies to me.
I was playing around with aio_read() and ran into some seemingly aberrant
behavior, although not with aio_read() itself, but the resulting signal.
Within struct aiocb I was setting:
aio_sigevent.sigev_notify = SIGEV_SIGNAL;
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 02:08:07AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
: On 2002-03-05 15:58, David O'Brien wrote:
: On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 10:13:50PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
: -Don't use '!' for tests
Geeze, spend a day at the doctors, and look what happens. The mst
interesting thing to show up on -chat in the entire time I've been
reading it. Language debates are such fun.
Steve B. [EMAIL PROTECTED] types:
I take a simplistic view after years of C++.
C++ is good for large projects that
David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] types:
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 02:08:07AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
I was giving one. :-)
style(9) documents the practices of /sys. Thus we should not arbitaryly
add rules w/o them being backed up in code.
As the original author of the PR, I'll point
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mike Meyer writes:
David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] types:
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 02:08:07AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
I was giving one. :-)
style(9) documents the practices of /sys. Thus we should not arbitaryly
add rules w/o them being backed up in code.
Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] types:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mike Meyer writes:
David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] types:
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 02:08:07AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
Now, IFF the C language had a type called boolean that would make
a lot of sense.
So you're
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mike Meyer writes:
Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] types:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mike Meyer writes:
David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] types:
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 02:08:07AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
Now, IFF the C language had a type called
98 matches
Mail list logo
