man.openbsd.org truncating ksh(1) man page

Hello misc@, Not sure if there are other pages that also have this problem, but ksh(1): http://man.openbsd.org/OpenBSD-current/man1/ksh.1 is truncated somewhere in the *Parameters* section. The man page from 5.0: http://man.openbsd.org/OpenBSD-5.0/cat1/ksh.0 is ok, but starting at 5.1:

Question on audio and video handling

So I built a small Haswell system and resumed on my attempt at porting OBS-Studio to OpenBSD. I was able to do a short (silent) stream to twitch, so that tested out. I am able to do window capture, so that seems ok. The problems I am encountering involve audio capture (from a window/program or

Re: new (nasty) spam pattern

On 05/08/2015 22:41, Steve Fairhead wrote: FWIW I nowadays record the last IP so that I can see patterns, and at the very least identify spammers which otherwise I would have missed. Finally, this has paid off. After a couple of years of collecting stats, I've identified some patterns, which

Re: 6.0/i386 memcpy(3) causes crash if DST < SRC, because of overlap

"Theo de Raadt" wrote: ... |> If your code triggers the memcpy() log+abort, then the code only works |> elsewhere because the compiler isn't smart enough. Yet. | |How about undefined behaviour such as the following: | |if (backwards) { | fprintf(stderr, "

Re: 6.0/i386 memcpy(3) causes crash if DST < SRC, because of overlap

Philip Guenther wrote: |On Tue, 21 Feb 2017, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote: |... |> But mind you, it is true that i still think it is funny that this |> happened on a BSD system, the origin of bcopy(3). To me memcpy(3) never ... |If your code triggers the memcpy() log+abort,

Re: 6.0/i386 memcpy(3) causes crash if DST < SRC, because of overlap

> On Tue, 21 Feb 2017, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote: > ... > > But mind you, it is true that i still think it is funny that this > > happened on a BSD system, the origin of bcopy(3). To me memcpy(3) never > > has been anything but an optimization for cases where you know it is > > save, so that the

Re: 6.0/i386 memcpy(3) causes crash if DST < SRC, because of overlap

On Tue, 21 Feb 2017, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote: ... > But mind you, it is true that i still think it is funny that this > happened on a BSD system, the origin of bcopy(3). To me memcpy(3) never > has been anything but an optimization for cases where you know it is > save, so that the tests, the

Re: 6.0/i386 memcpy(3) causes crash if DST < SRC, because of overlap

"Theo de Raadt" wrote: ... |>|the point is to make memcpy a strict API. |> |> It turned out not to be too problematic for myself (i hope i have |> found all occurrences). The commit message reads |> |> Avoid memcpy(3) crash due to strict standard compliance.. |

Re: 6.0/i386 memcpy(3) causes crash if DST < SRC, because of overlap

> Theo de Raadt wrote: > |>> There's got to be a performance cost, not using the .S versions. > |> > |>What is the average size of the copy please? > | > |Average in what? In base, or in chrome? > | > |>Years ago, I did a whole lot of tests with this. I was so

Re: qt 5.8.0 on OpenBSD 6.0: compilation fails

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017, Stuart Henderson wrote: > Some of the patches may be sane to upstream (or are backported and Well, since the Qt source code comes with OpenBSD "support" [1] I hoped it would at least compile without errors "out of the box". [1] for example,

Re: qt 5.8.0 on OpenBSD 6.0: compilation fails

On 2017-02-21, Claus Assmann wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017, Rafael Sadowski wrote: > >> You will not be happy with these plan. Not without reason there is only >> Qt 5.6 in -current. It is a hard piece of work for example see the patch >> set onyl for qt core: > >

Re: qt 5.8.0 on OpenBSD 6.0: compilation fails

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017, Rafael Sadowski wrote: > You will not be happy with these plan. Not without reason there is only > Qt 5.6 in -current. It is a hard piece of work for example see the patch > set onyl for qt core: Thanks, somehow the cvs checkout for ports/x11/qt5 on my system didn't include

Re: 6.0/i386 memcpy(3) causes crash if DST < SRC, because of overlap

Theo de Raadt wrote: |>> There's got to be a performance cost, not using the .S versions. |> |>What is the average size of the copy please? | |Average in what? In base, or in chrome? | |>Years ago, I did a whole lot of tests with this. I was so disappointed |>with

Re: relayd as simple forward proxy

On 2017-02-21, Jiri B wrote: > can I use relayd as simple forward http proxy, ie. a non-caching > variant of tinyproxy or squid? Not transparently - intercepting, but > as usual http proxy. No.

relayd as simple forward proxy

Hi, can I use relayd as simple forward http proxy, ie. a non-caching variant of tinyproxy or squid? Not transparently - intercepting, but as usual http proxy. j.