--- Matthew Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Er. Well, if I were talking about today I
would be talking about today.
I'm talking about the near-future, 2-3
years from now. It would be the
height of stupidity to have programming
goals that only satisfy the
needs of today.
--- Kevin L. Kane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, 2-3 years tops, and there won't be
any more single-core offerings
from AMD or Intel. Probably not even for
laptops.
This is really already happening, ALL of
Apple's new latops are dual
core only and the only single core Intel
Danial Thom wrote:
Surely it makes sense to begin developing O/S
applications (which is what I need to do),
however I need an OS that is production ready,
even if its not as good as its going to be,
because I can't reasonably test the performance
of an application on an OS that can't handle
Hi compiler/OS gurus,
Please consider this trivial fragment of c code which I've
written in two different styles:
Style 1:
time_t t*;
time(t);
Style 2:
time_t t;
time(t);
My puzzle is this: on *BSD these two different styles work
identically -- but on my linux boxes Style 1 produces a
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 12:44:07PM -0700, walt wrote:
Hi compiler/OS gurus,
Please consider this trivial fragment of c code which I've
written in two different styles:
Style 1:
time_t t*;
time(t);
Style 2:
time_t t;
time(t);
My puzzle is this: on *BSD these two different styles
On Wed, May 31, 2006 11:50 am, Danial Thom wrote:
--- Matthew Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Er. Well, if I were talking about today I would be talking about
today. I'm talking about the near-future, 2-3 years from now. It
would be the height of stupidity to have programming goals that
:Here's a question for Matt, will dual-core
:designed chips (as opposed to chips with 2
:independent cores on once chip) be used on an UP
:OS as a single core? Say if I wanted to use a
:dual-core chip on Freebsd 4.x in UP mode since
:SMP sucks wind? Or do the cores designed as
:dual-core with the
:Hi compiler/OS gurus,
:
:Please consider this trivial fragment of c code which I've
:written in two different styles:
:
:Style 1:
:time_t t*;
:time(t);
:
:Style 2:
:time_t t;
:time(t);
:
:My puzzle is this: on *BSD these two different styles work
:identically -- but on my linux boxes Style 1
Hi compiler/OS gurus,
Please consider this trivial fragment of c code which I've
written in two different styles:
Style 1:
time_t t*;
time(t);
Style 2:
time_t t;
time(t);
My puzzle is this: on *BSD these two different styles work
identically -- but on my linux boxes Style 1
On May 31, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
I can not agree with this. BSD malloc() (or better: free()) is
much more conservative, and lately our default even changed to
abort on double free()s. A lot of buggy software has double free()
s and I think glibc doesn't even
Running 1.4.4 here and net-snmp. Im getting lots of these errors:
Jun 1 13:01:29 h5n1 snmpd[14906]: auto_nlist failed on cnt at location 1
Jun 1 13:01:29 h5n1 snmpd[14906]: kvm_read(*, 1, 0x280f31e0, 164) = -1:
kvm_rea
d: Bad address
Jun 1 13:01:29 h5n1 snmpd[14906]: auto_nlist failed on cnt
11 matches
Mail list logo
