On 2021/08/09 7:26, Rin Okuyama wrote:
- Initialize LIST_HEAD.
Hmm, since HEADs are static, this is not necessary. But, it should be
a good practice to initialize HEADs always, IMO...
Thanks,
rin
Lourival Pereira Vieira Neto wrote:
...
Index: src/sys/modules/lua/stdlib.h
diff -u src/sys/modules/lua/stdlib.h:1.1 src/sys/modules/lua/stdlib.h:1.2
--- src/sys/modules/lua/stdlib.h:1.1 Wed Oct 16 19:44:57 2013
+++ src/sys/modules/lua/stdlib.h Sat Jul 19 17:10:02 2014
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
Hi Alexander,
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Alexander Nasonov al...@yandex.ru wrote:
Lourival Pereira Vieira Neto wrote:
...
Index: src/sys/modules/lua/stdlib.h
diff -u src/sys/modules/lua/stdlib.h:1.1 src/sys/modules/lua/stdlib.h:1.2
--- src/sys/modules/lua/stdlib.h:1.1 Wed Oct 16
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013, Marc Balmer wrote:
Modified Files:
src/sys/modules/lua: Makefile
Log Message:
fix build on arm
Please describe the actual change, not just the reason for it.
Fopr example:
Move -include ${.CURDIR}/luaconf.h from CPPFLAGS to CFLAGS.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
Alexander Nasonov wrote:
+#define exit(EXIT_FAILURE) return
You only need to make a change in one place in ldo.c:
@@ -105,7 +110,11 @@ void luaD_throw (lua_State *L, int errco
lua_unlock(L);
G(L)-panic(L);
}
+#if defined(_KERNEL)
+panic(luaD_throw(), errcode=%d,
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 09:25:19AM +0100, Alexander Nasonov wrote:
We just need to make sure that all entry points to Lua are protected and
hope that the above panic will never trigger.
Actually, I would prefer if that call to panic wasn't there at all.
Instead the script/state should be
Christoph Badura wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 09:25:19AM +0100, Alexander Nasonov wrote:
We just need to make sure that all entry points to Lua are protected and
hope that the above panic will never trigger.
Actually, I would prefer if that call to panic wasn't there at all.
Instead the
Am 22.10.13 14:24, schrieb Christoph Badura:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 09:25:19AM +0100, Alexander Nasonov wrote:
We just need to make sure that all entry points to Lua are protected and
hope that the above panic will never trigger.
Actually, I would prefer if that call to panic wasn't there
Marc Balmer wrote:
Module Name: src
Committed By: mbalmer
Date: Wed Oct 16 19:44:58 UTC 2013
Added Files:
src/sys/modules/lua: Makefile assert.h ctype.h errno.h infinite.lua
inttypes.h limits.h locale.h lua.c luaconf.h luavar.h math.h
setjmp.h signal.h
Marc Balmer wrote:
Module Name: src
Committed By: mbalmer
Date: Wed Oct 16 19:44:58 UTC 2013
Added Files:
src/sys/modules/lua: Makefile assert.h ctype.h errno.h infinite.lua
inttypes.h limits.h locale.h lua.c luaconf.h luavar.h math.h
setjmp.h signal.h
Am 18.10.13 09:16, schrieb Alexander Nasonov:
Marc Balmer wrote:
Module Name: src
Committed By:mbalmer
Date:Wed Oct 16 19:44:58 UTC 2013
Added Files:
src/sys/modules/lua: Makefile assert.h ctype.h errno.h infinite.lua
inttypes.h limits.h locale.h lua.c
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 08:16:32AM +0100, Alexander Nasonov wrote:
First of all, the code has been imported the wrong way as I stated in
the previous email. You should properly import Lua 5.2 to sys/external/
and then apply local changes required to run it in kernel space.
I agree. Already for
From: Marc Balmer mbal...@netbsd.org
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:44:58 +
welcome lua(4), a devide driver that can create and control Lua states
inside
the kernel
Did you get core approval for this? The public discussion is still
ongoing, and still lacking in evidence, and there
Am 18.10.13 14:24, schrieb Taylor R Campbell:
From: Marc Balmer mbal...@netbsd.org
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:44:58 +
welcome lua(4), a devide driver that can create and control Lua states
inside
the kernel
Did you get core approval for this? The public discussion is
Marc Balmer wrote:
This was not an import of Lua. The Lua sources already are in the tree.
When we are ready to move from Lua 5.1 to Lua 5.2, Lua 5.2 will be
imported to sys/external, as I already mentioned.
In this case, kernel changes should have been added to 5.1 source and
later ported
Am 18.10.13 19:13, schrieb Alexander Nasonov:
Marc Balmer wrote:
This was not an import of Lua. The Lua sources already are in the tree.
When we are ready to move from Lua 5.1 to Lua 5.2, Lua 5.2 will be
imported to sys/external, as I already mentioned.
In this case, kernel changes should
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013, Marc Balmer wrote:
Did you get core approval for this? The public discussion is
still ongoing, and still lacking in evidence, and there has
been no public statement by core as far as I am aware, nor did
any members of core I asked have any recollection of approving
this.
apb@ wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013, Marc Balmer wrote:
Did you get core approval for this? The public discussion is
still ongoing, and still lacking in evidence, and there has
been no public statement by core as far as I am aware, nor did
any members of core I asked have any
Am 17.10.13 00:26, schrieb Alexander Nasonov:
Two things attracted my eyes after a very quick look.
+#define exit(EXIT_FAILURE) return
I can't believe this code in the tree! I thought we agreed that it will
be changed.
What's the point of compiling unmodified Lua sources if it
19 matches
Mail list logo
