TB --- 2012-11-10 19:50:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-11-10 19:50:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
TB --- 2012-11-10 19:50:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-11-10 19:50:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
Hi Everybody,
Adrian (my co-mentor) wanted some additional eyes/names for review on a patch
I'm making to sys/boot/forth (patch attached as patch.txt).
The patch makes no changes to user experience or functionality (but _does_ fix
one incident of stack leakage -- among other things).
I wrote/t
It's a valid concern. I need to pick up my game.
Adrian
On 10 November 2012 08:26, Sergey V. Dyatko wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:03:00 -0800
> Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
>> On 10 November 2012 07:10, Doug Brewer wrote:
>> > Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> > On 9 November 2012 14:37, Chuck Burns wrote
On 2012-11-10 22:39, Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 01:33:40AM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote:
...
- Only define isnan, isnanf, __isnan and __isnanf in libc.so, not in
libc.a and libc_p.a.
OK, but please add a comment about this.
Where? In libc or libm?
- Define isnan i
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 01:33:40AM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 2012-11-10 00:25, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> ...
> > The more difficult way out is to not define any duplicate functions in
> > libc.a and libm.a. For the shared libraries, this should not be a
> > problem, since the dynamic linker
On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 21:02:19 -0500 Steve Wills
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I get this panic:
>
> Fatal trap 18: integer divide fault while in kernel mode
> cpuid = 4; apic id = 04
> instruction pointer = 0x20:0x808f0c23
> stack pointer = 0x28:0xff83693b8b40
> frame pointer
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Brett wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 23:34:24 +1100
> Peter Jeremy wrote:
>
> > On 2012-Nov-10 09:16:32 +1100, Brett wrote:
> > >Just an observation: a few years ago when I got sick of Linux's
> > >"headlong rush" development model, I subscribed to various BSD
> >
The XNB_ASSERT is defined as a statement expression, but it's result is
not used anywhere (not in a single place).
Ken, can this be just rewritten as do { ... } while(0) ? Or is there a special
reason why it is a statement expression?
Roman
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 05:49:35PM +, FreeBSD Tinde
TB --- 2012-11-10 11:20:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-11-10 11:20:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:03:00 -0800
Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 10 November 2012 07:10, Doug Brewer wrote:
> > Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > On 9 November 2012 14:37, Chuck Burns wrote:
> >>
> >> > Adrian. diskspace and cpu cycles are things I can spare, drop me
> >> > a line outside of the ML and we can
Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 9 November 2012 14:37, Chuck Burns wrote:
>
> > Adrian. diskspace and cpu cycles are things I can spare, drop me a line
> > outside of the ML and we can discuss particulars. "It's just a personal
> > box.. on a residential internet service, I have an amd64 box with 600G free
On 10 November 2012 07:10, Doug Brewer wrote:
> Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 9 November 2012 14:37, Chuck Burns wrote:
>>
>> > Adrian. diskspace and cpu cycles are things I can spare, drop me a line
>> > outside of the ML and we can discuss particulars. "It's just a personal
>> > box.. on a residenti
Chuck Burns wrote:
On 11/9/2012 4:16 PM, Brett wrote:
> >> Message: 11
> >> Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 23:34:58 +0800
> >> From: Doug Brewer
> >> To: Adrian Chadd
> >> Cc: a...@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Tinderbox ,
> >>curr...@freebsd.org
> >> Subject: Re: [head tinderbox] failure on arm/arm
> >> Messa
TB --- 2012-11-10 13:42:19 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-11-10 13:42:19 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
TB --- 2012-11-10 11:20:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-11-10 11:20:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
TB --- 2012-11-10 11:20:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2012-11-10 11:20:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE
FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012
d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
TB --- 2012-
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 23:34:24 +1100
Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2012-Nov-10 09:16:32 +1100, Brett wrote:
> >Just an observation: a few years ago when I got sick of Linux's
> >"headlong rush" development model, I subscribed to various BSD
> >mailing lists to see what else was out there. I considered
>
> NetBSD is hit-or-miss to build successfully, more miss than hit. NetBSD
> supports GPT awkwardly but has no support for USB 3.0.
>
> NetBSD is rather unstable. I think I'd trust FreeBSD-current over a stable
> or release version of NetBSD.
>
> How does OpenBSD compare in that regard?
>
On 2012-Nov-10 09:16:32 +1100, Brett wrote:
>Just an observation: a few years ago when I got sick of Linux's
>"headlong rush" development model, I subscribed to various BSD
>mailing lists to see what else was out there. I considered FreeBSD at
>the time - there was a neverending avalanche of "[hea
from Brett :
> Just an observation: a few years ago when I got sick of Linux's "headlong
> rush" development model, I subscribed to various BSD mailing lists to see what
> +else was out there. I considered FreeBSD at the time - there was a
> neverending avalanche of "[head tinderbox] failure" m
On 2012-11-10 07:46, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
On Friday, 9 November 2012 at 13:52:24 +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote:
...
Looks like yet another cpp -traditional abuse.
Use or abuse?
Abuse, definitely. :-) A "C Preprocessor" is clearly meant to
preprocess C, not arbitrary text files.
You ca
22 matches
Mail list logo