Svante Signell, on Fri 06 Nov 2015 23:21:00 +0100, wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-11-06 at 20:56 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, on Thu 05 Nov 2015 10:30:27 +0100, wrote:
> > > How many users are there of GNU/Hurd, especially running old
> > > releases?
> >
> > All the current users. If
On Fri, 2015-11-06 at 20:56 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, on Thu 05 Nov 2015 10:30:27 +0100, wrote:
> > -__hurd_local_reply_port = __mach_reply_port ();
> > +port = __mach_reply_port ();
>
> That's not the same.
See the next message:
port = __hurd_local_reply_port = __ma
Svante Signell, on Thu 05 Nov 2015 10:30:27 +0100, wrote:
> -__hurd_local_reply_port = __mach_reply_port ();
> +port = __mach_reply_port ();
That's not the same.
> Samuel: Regarding your previous comment:
> >> Additionally, any strong reason to not change mig??
> >
> > Having to deal wit
On Thu, 2015-11-05 at 10:43 +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
> On Thursday 05 November 2015 10:30:27 Svante Signell wrote:
> >
> > + mach_port_t port = __hurd_local_reply_port;
> > + if (port == MACH_PORT_NULL ||
> > + (&__hurd_local_reply_port != &__hurd_reply_port0 &&
> > + port == __hurd
On Thursday 05 November 2015 10:30:27 Svante Signell wrote:
> I agree, the #if 1 part was not OK. What about rewriting
> __mig_get_reply_port() too to be more readable?
>
> Please tell me if this patch is faulty in some way, I'm still on the
> learning curve.
>
> Index: glibc-2.19/sysdeps/mach/hu
On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 22:34 -0300, Diego Nieto Cid wrote:
>
> 2015-11-04 16:03 GMT-03:00 Svante Signell :
> > On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 18:57 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Diego Nieto Cid, on Wed 04 Nov 2015 10:50:35 -0300, wrote:
> > > > assert (__hurd_local_reply_port == arg || arg ==
> MACH
2015-11-04 16:03 GMT-03:00 Svante Signell :
> On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 18:57 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Diego Nieto Cid, on Wed 04 Nov 2015 10:50:35 -0300, wrote:
> > > assert (__hurd_local_reply_port == arg || arg == MACH_PORT_NULL)
> > >
> > > AIUI any other values are bogus given how 'mig_
Svante Signell, on Wed 04 Nov 2015 20:03:02 +0100, wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 18:57 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Diego Nieto Cid, on Wed 04 Nov 2015 10:50:35 -0300, wrote:
> > > assert (__hurd_local_reply_port == arg || arg == MACH_PORT_NULL)
> > >
> > > AIUI any other values are bogus
On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 18:57 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Diego Nieto Cid, on Wed 04 Nov 2015 10:50:35 -0300, wrote:
> > assert (__hurd_local_reply_port == arg || arg == MACH_PORT_NULL)
> >
> > AIUI any other values are bogus given how 'mig_get_reply_port' and
> > 'mig_dealloc_reply_port' are
Diego Nieto Cid, on Wed 04 Nov 2015 10:50:35 -0300, wrote:
> assert (__hurd_local_reply_port == arg || arg == MACH_PORT_NULL)
>
> AIUI any other values are bogus given how 'mig_get_reply_port' and
> 'mig_dealloc_reply_port' are meant to be paired.
That's probably a good thing to do, yes.
Samue
Hi
2015-11-04 6:30 GMT-03:00 Svante Signell :
>
> Diego,
> Cc: bug-hurd.
Oh, I mistakenly hit 'Reply'. I hate when that happens :(
> On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 15:55 -0300, Diego Nieto Cid wrote:
>
> > I'd suggest to assert (port == arg || arg == MACH_PORT_NULL) just to
> > be sure users don't expect
Diego,
Cc: bug-hurd.
On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 15:55 -0300, Diego Nieto Cid wrote:
> Hi
>
> 2015-11-03 9:51 GMT-03:00 Svante Signell :
> >
> > Hello,
> >
>
> Definition, declaration and usages are all consistent, they pass and
> receive one argument.
> The argument being unsed is just an implementat
Hello,
The definitions and declarations of mig_dealloc_reply_port() are
confusing, some use an argument, some don't:
Declaration (function argument): glibc-2.19/mach/mach/mig_support.h
/* Reply-port management support functions. */
extern void __mig_dealloc_reply_port (mach_port_t);
extern void
13 matches
Mail list logo
