On 27 April 2013 09:06, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 08:10:41AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 01:08:06AM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
>>
>> > Hey all,
>> >
>> > Time for attempt #2!
>> >
>> > Adding static to internal function allows the compiler to b
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 09:12:21AM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 27 April 2013 09:06, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 08:10:41AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> >> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 01:08:06AM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hey all,
> >> >
> >> > Time for attemp
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 08:10:41AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 01:08:06AM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
>
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Time for attempt #2!
> >
> > Adding static to internal function allows the compiler to better
> > detect dead code (functions, variables, etc) and
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 08:10, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 01:08:06AM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
>
>> Adding static to internal function allows the compiler to better
>> detect dead code (functions, variables, etc) and makes it easier for
>> the compiler to optimize; e.g., since i
On Apr 27, 2013, at 7:36 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 08:10, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 01:08:06AM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
>>
>>> Adding static to internal function allows the compiler to better
>>> detect dead code (functions, variables, etc) and makes
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 09:09:25PM +0200, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2013, at 7:36 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 08:10, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> >> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 01:08:06AM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
> >>
> >>> Adding static to internal function allows the
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 09:09:25PM +0200, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> On backtrace(3) (which is a GNU thing, I know), static functions don't
> show up with their respective names even though they are in the binary.
> That's a tad annoying, but I am not aware of any other limitation. Can
> someone plea
On Apr 27, 2013, at 9:28 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 09:09:25PM +0200, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>> On backtrace(3) (which is a GNU thing, I know), static functions don't
>> show up with their respective names even though they are in the binary.
>> That's a tad annoying,
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 09:14:59PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 09:09:25PM +0200, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>
> > On Apr 27, 2013, at 7:36 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 08:10, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > >> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 01:08:06AM -0400, E
Hi,
here is a patch to remove two useless variables in ntpd. Spotted
when recompiling with -Wextra.
Ok/Comments?
Index: client.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/ntpd/client.c,v
retrieving revision 1.89
diff -u -p -r1.89 client.c
---
> Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:36:31 -0400
> From: Ted Unangst
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 08:10, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 01:08:06AM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote:
> >
> >> Adding static to internal function allows the compiler to better
> >> detect dead code (functions, variable
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 10:30:01PM +0200, Maxime Villard wrote:
> Hi,
> here is a patch to remove two useless variables in ntpd. Spotted
> when recompiling with -Wextra.
>
> Ok/Comments?
Looks like 'auth' has been removed in revision 1.8 and 'len' in
revision 1.17 of ntp_msg.c but not removed fr
On 27 April 2013 15:38, Tobias Ulmer wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 09:14:59PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 09:09:25PM +0200, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 27, 2013, at 7:36 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 08:10, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
13 matches
Mail list logo