On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 07:59:03PM +, Andrew Doran wrote:
> > Why don't we check our watch immediately when we set IN_CHANGE ,
> > and defer the disk write to update the inode like UFS_WAPBL_UPDATE
> > does -- and just skip UFS_ITIMES in VOP_GETATTR?
>
> This looks to go back least as far as
On Sun, Mar 08, 2020 at 09:22:28PM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 22:48:25 +
> > From: Andrew Doran
> >
> > I'd like to merge the changes on the ad-namecache branch, and would
> > appreciate any code review. The motivation for these changes is, as
> > you might
On Sun, Mar 08, 2020 at 09:58:05PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> Aaron (as he was mentioned by name), is a voting member in the C++
> committee and actively working on harmonizing C and C++ standards. There
> is a good chance that C and C++ will be synced here (they definitely
> should).
Yes,
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 9:21 AM Martin Husemann wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 01:34:23PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>
> > We instruct a C compiler that pointer used in the pserialize macros is
> > never NULL, as the side effect of adding to it 0.
>
> I question that side effect.
>
> The
Hi,
modload(8) fails if some depended functions are alias, at least
on m68k. For example:
# uname -a
NetBSD 9.99.49 NetBSD 9.99.49 (GENERIC) #6: Mon Mar 9 22:53:07 JST 2020
rin@latipes:/build/src/sys/arch/sun2/compile/GENERIC sun2
# modload nfs
[xxx.xxx] kobj_checksyms, 998:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 2:30 PM Taylor R Campbell
wrote:
>
> > Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2020 20:52:29 +0300
> > From: Roman Lebedev
> >
> > so we are allowed to lower that in clang front-end as:
> >
> > int
> > statu(char *a)
> > {
> > __builtin_assume(a != NULL);
> > a += getuid() - geteuid();
> >
On 09.03.2020 07:05, Martin Husemann wrote:
> Also note that the getuid()/geteuid() example here is IMHO unrelated to the
> original issue that caused this discussion, so I am not even convinced this
> is NOT a ubsan bug.
We instruct a C compiler that pointer used in the pserialize macros is
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 01:34:23PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> We instruct a C compiler that pointer used in the pserialize macros is
> never NULL, as the side effect of adding to it 0.
I question that side effect.
The C++ standard disagrees with your interpration, I have not seen clear
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 11:51 AM Martin Husemann wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 09:38:31AM -0400, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> > The way I read this is:
> >
> > "If the pointer operand points to an element of an array object" -- it
> > does not (null is not a valid array object).
> > "Moreover, if
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 09:50:50AM -0400, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 2:30 PM Taylor R Campbell
> > I ask because in principle a conformant implementation could compile
> > the NetBSD kernel into a useless blob that does nothing -- we rely on
> > all sorts of behaviour relative
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 12:36 PM Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 09:50:50AM -0400, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 2:30 PM Taylor R Campbell
> > > I ask because in principle a conformant implementation could compile
> > > the NetBSD kernel into a useless blob
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 09:38:31AM -0400, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> The way I read this is:
>
> "If the pointer operand points to an element of an array object" -- it
> does not (null is not a valid array object).
> "Moreover, if the expression P points to the last element of an array
> object" --
Our in-kernel linker does not understand weak references. It would
be a lot of work to implement, and there are some issues that would
need to be considered carefully.
For example, if module A defines a weak alias, and module B is loaded
and resolves the alias, what do you do if module C gets
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 12:41:37PM -0400, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> > You could view NULL as a special pointer pointing to an inaccessible
> > zero sized object. Adding 0 to it still points to the same special
> > non-object. I guess that is how the C++ folks see it.
>
> This wording has always been
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 2:53 PM Martin Husemann wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 12:41:37PM -0400, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> > > You could view NULL as a special pointer pointing to an inaccessible
> > > zero sized object. Adding 0 to it still points to the same special
> > > non-object. I guess
15 matches
Mail list logo
