> FWIW, the original UNIX had bcopy.
Which makes me an ignorant idiot. So it goes.
/\/\arc
> > On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:00:59 -0700, Tim Wiess wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, the original UNIX had bcopy.
>
> I can't find it in my Bell Labs "Unix programmer's manual" Vol 1
> 1983
I meant to say it had *a* bcopy. Since I found its definition in a
copy of Lion's book (v6 kernel). I don't know if it w
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:00:59 -0700, Tim Wiess wrote:
>FWIW, the original UNIX had bcopy.
I can't find it in my Bell Labs "Unix programmer's manual" Vol 1 1983
*** NOTE *** Please DO NOT CC me. I subscribed to the list.
Mail to the sender address that does not originate at the list server is
t
> Bullshit. If you're going to rail against something at least get
> the history correct.
>
> System III Unix in 1982 had neither
> memcpy came with System V in about 1983
> bcopy came with 4.2 bsd in about 1983
>
> If you grew up with BSD then bcopy was your friend. If you grew
> up with Syst
Except that bcopy always works and memcpy doesn't. Sure it is historic.
History is riddled with mistakes. BTW I grew up on memcpy and I always
found it a stupid API, same is true for str* functions and original
intel assembly. They all got it backwards.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 06:00:33PM -0700,
Also a missing include.
Index: imsg.h
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libutil/imsg.h,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -d -u -p -w imsg.h
--- imsg.h 26 May 2010 16:44:32 - 1.1
+++ imsg.h 23 Jun 2010 01:36:28 -
@@ -18,6
Hi, imsg.h in libutil was unprotected.
Index: imsg.h
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libutil/imsg.h,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -d -u -p -w imsg.h
--- imsg.h 26 May 2010 16:44:32 - 1.1
+++ imsg.h 23 Jun 2010 01:23:00
> > miod is 100% right. memcpy is another committee hit job on
> > practicality. OMG bcopy wasn't invented here lets flip around the
> > parameters foar moar bettarone!!!```~!~!Y~%!^%
>
> Bullshit. If you're going to rail against something at least
> get the history correct.
>
> System II
> miod is 100% right. memcpy is another committee hit job on
> practicality. OMG bcopy wasn't invented here lets flip around the
> parameters foar moar bettarone!!!```~!~!Y~%!^%
Bullshit. If you're going to rail against something at least
get the history correct.
System III Unix in 1982 h
> Not that anyone here cares, but I expect the original comment stems
> from having read a linux manual for bcopy, which states:
>
> CONFORMING TO
>4.3BSD. This function is deprecated (marked as LEGACY
> in
>POSIX.1-2001): use memcpy(3) or memmove(3) in new programs.
On 23 June 2010 09:06, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:20:09AM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 06:53:12PM +, Miod Vallat wrote:
>> > > >> Is there any reson you use bcopy() not memcpy()?
>> > > >> If not considder using memcpy() please. :)
>> > >
>> > >
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:20:09AM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 06:53:12PM +, Miod Vallat wrote:
> > > >> Is there any reson you use bcopy() not memcpy()?
> > > >> If not considder using memcpy() please. :)
> > >
> > > > We couldn't care what you believe, unless you have
Connaissez-vous la signification du mot
B+ PROCRASTINER B; ?
Si c'est le cas, il est indiscutable
que les techniques de gestion du temps vous
sont familiC(res, ou
du moins, que vous vous y intC)ressez
activement. M
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 06:53:12PM +, Miod Vallat wrote:
> > >> Is there any reson you use bcopy() not memcpy()?
> > >> If not considder using memcpy() please. :)
> >
> > > We couldn't care what you believe, unless you have diffs of your own
> > > to submit.
> >
> > I think the guy there aske
Good Design is Good Business
If your website & email marketing isn't generating quality leads,
let us help. Our email marketing software will make sure your email
newsletter, email advertising, and other important communications
produce the results you really want. We create an EXTRAORDINARY
webs
* Philipp Schafft [2010-06-22 20:09]:
> reflum,
>
> On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 12:44 -0700, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> > It looks like adw(4) has never correctly supported >12 byte SCSI
> > requests. It wants to copy from 12 bytes past the start of the CDB,
> > but &xs->cmd[12] is actually 192 bytes pa
> >> Is there any reson you use bcopy() not memcpy()?
> >> If not considder using memcpy() please. :)
>
> > We couldn't care what you believe, unless you have diffs of your own
> > to submit.
>
> I think the guy there asked if there is any difference, it was just that.
I
> also don't know bcopy() a
> >> Is there any reson you use bcopy() not memcpy()?
> >> If not considder using memcpy() please. :)
>
> > We couldn't care what you believe, unless you have diffs of your own
> > to submit.
>
> I think the guy there asked if there is any difference, it was just that. I
> also don't know bcopy()
>> Is there any reson you use bcopy() not memcpy()?
>> If not considder using memcpy() please. :)
> We couldn't care what you believe, unless you have diffs of your own
> to submit.
I think the guy there asked if there is any difference, it was just that. I
also don't know bcopy() and would like
> Is there any reson you use bcopy() not memcpy()?
> If not considder using memcpy() please. :)
We couldn't care what you believe, unless you have diffs of your own
to submit.
> > diff -u -p dev/ic/adw.c
> > [...]
> > + bcopy(xs->cmd, &scsiqp->cdb, MIN(xs->cmdlen, 12));
> > [...]
>
> Is there any reson you use bcopy() not memcpy()?
> If not considder using memcpy() please. :)
Is there any reason you advocate memcpy() over bcopy()?
If not, consider advocating the mor
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 04:02:16PM +0200, Philipp Schafft wrote:
> reflum,
>
> On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 12:44 -0700, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> > It looks like adw(4) has never correctly supported >12 byte SCSI
> > requests. It wants to copy from 12 bytes past the start of the CDB,
> > but &xs->cmd[12
reflum,
On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 12:44 -0700, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> It looks like adw(4) has never correctly supported >12 byte SCSI
> requests. It wants to copy from 12 bytes past the start of the CDB,
> but &xs->cmd[12] is actually 192 bytes past (and pointing at who knows
> what).
>
> However
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 01:37:19PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2010/06/16 20:19, Patrick Coleman wrote:
> > >>
> > >
> > > trunk(4) places trunkports into promiscuous mode anyway,
> > > so would it make more sense just to skip the IFF_PROMISC
> > > check here? in which case, there would be
2010/6/22 Theo de Raadt :
> It is way too easy to misuse this. People who use it will reduce
> security when they think they are increasing security.
2010/6/22 Henning Brauer :
> I am extremely sceptical about this. first thought is really - do it
> in userland.
Hm-m-m. Say creating uniproxyd(8)
I do not want the entire group seeing these photos.Because some may recognize
me. Here's the link:
http://diehar.zoomshare.com/files/photos.htm
I am extremely sceptical about this. first thought is really - do it
in userland.
--
Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting
27 matches
Mail list logo
