On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 20:32 -0700, Kelly Clowers wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 18:34, Alexander Samad wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I was wondering if it is possible to decode this javascript from the
> > command line
> >
> >
> > var serializer = new Serializer()
> > serializer.deserialize('B64ENCe30=
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 18:34, Alexander Samad wrote:
> Hi
>
> I was wondering if it is possible to decode this javascript from the
> command line
>
>
> var serializer = new Serializer()
> serializer.deserialize('B64ENCe30=')
>
> can't find any reference on how serialize works and can't find any
>
- Original Message -
From: Alexander Samad
Date: Friday, May 14, 2010 9:35 pm
Subject: Programming question
To: Debian User List
> Hi
>
> I was wondering if it is possible to decode this javascript from the
> command line
>
>
> var serializer = new Serializer()
> serializer.deserializ
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 01:42:14PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 14:23:38 +0200, Joop Stakenborg wrote:
> > Morse MorseTable[]=
> > {
> > ' ',NIL,NIL,NIL,NIL,NIL,NIL,NIL,
>
> Change to
> {' ', {NIL,NIL,NIL,NIL,NIL,NIL,NIL}},
> etc. The outer pair of cu
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 14:23:38 +0200, Joop Stakenborg wrote:
> Morse MorseTable[]=
> {
> ' ',NIL,NIL,NIL,NIL,NIL,NIL,NIL,
Change to
{' ', {NIL,NIL,NIL,NIL,NIL,NIL,NIL}},
etc. The outer pair of curly braces is because the elements of the array are
structs, which aren't atomic; th
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 12:22:57PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen Ray" wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:58:23 +0200, Joop Stakenborg wrote:
> > morse.c:52: warning: missing braces around initializer
>
> > Anyone know how to fix?
>
> Just a guess, perhaps Morse is a 2 or more dimensional array type rathe
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:58:23 +0200, Joop Stakenborg wrote:
> morse.c:52: warning: missing braces around initializer
> Anyone know how to fix?
Just a guess, perhaps Morse is a 2 or more dimensional array type rather
than a one-dimensional one, and you need to add braces for the rows?
Ray
--
On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Joop Stakenborg wrote:
> struct foo {
> char text[3];
> int num;
> };
> sizeof would return 6 and not 5. So it's obvious that the compiler is
> placing a pad byte between text and num to align num. I want it to
> stop!
That's odd. On most architectures, I would e
Joop Stakenborg writes:
> Hi there,
>
> The upstream maintainer of one of my packages is having problems
> with his code. I thought it would be nice to use the debian mailing
> lists, to see if we can an answer on this. I will forward any solution
> to him.
>
> --
Carl Mummert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >#pragma pack(1)
> >struct {};
> >#pragma pack()
> >
> >Which forces the layout to be as you specified.
> >
> >Using a command line option is a Bad Idea (tm) as it may corrupt glibc's
> >structures
>
> To test a resonse to the original message, I made th
Joop Stakenborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For instance, if the structure were:
>
> struct foo {
> char text[3];
> int num;
> };
>
> sizeof would return 6 and not 5. So it's obvious that the compiler is
> placing a pad byte between text and num to align num. I want it to
> stop!
A
On Sun, 11 Jul 1999, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 1999 at 11:26:19PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Or even 8, since an int is 32 bits.
>
> int can be anything from 16 bits up.
we do not have such architectures, i believe
> In fact, I believe we have
> architectures where
On Sat, Jul 10, 1999 at 11:26:19PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Or even 8, since an int is 32 bits.
int can be anything from 16 bits up. In fact, I believe we have
architectures where int is 64 bits. Do *not* depend on the size of int!
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http
On Fri, Jul 09, 1999 at 09:44:06AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > struct foo {
> > > char text[3];
> > > int num;
> > > };
> > >
> > > sizeof would return 6 and not 5.
> >
> > 6? Are you sure you're using Linux/gcc?
>
> Yes, 6, it will insert a single extra character at the end o
%% Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > For instance, if the structure were:
>> >
>> > struct foo {
>> > char text[3];
>> > int num;
>> > };
>> >
>> > sizeof would return 6 and not 5.
>>
>> 6? Are you sure you're using Linux/gcc?
jg> Yes, 6, it will
>#pragma pack(1)
>struct {};
>#pragma pack()
>
>Which forces the layout to be as you specified.
>
>Using a command line option is a Bad Idea (tm) as it may corrupt glibc's
>structures
To test a resonse to the original message, I made the follwing c file
( I was not familiar with the attribute flag
Hi,
On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Oleg Krivosheev wrote:
>
> > > to not be handled properly. Even though I specify -fpack_struct the
> > > generated code does not appear to actually do this. Structure fields
> > > are
> > > offset and the return from sizeof(
On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Oleg Krivosheev wrote:
> > to not be handled properly. Even though I specify -fpack_struct the
> > generated code does not appear to actually do this. Structure fields
> > are
> > offset and the return from sizeof() returns a value that is not valid.
>
> what do you mean it
Hi,
> Hi there,
>
> The upstream maintainer of one of my packages is having problems
> with his code.
with his code?
> I thought it would be nice to use the debian mailing
> lists, to see if we can an answer on this. I will forward any solution
> to him.
>
> --
On Fri, Jul 09, 1999 at 09:09:15AM +0200, Joop Stakenborg wrote:
> The reason why I have not released LogConv 1.54 for Linux is that I am
> having problems with packed structures that is causing some file formats
> to not be handled properly.
Reading and writing structs to files is at best unporta
20 matches
Mail list logo
