On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 10:19:35AM +0200, Michal Mazurek wrote:
>> > doesn;t the code mean the check is for zero, not "less than or equal to
>> > zero"?
>>
>> Oops, you're right.
>
> everything else looks alright. i'll commit it soon if no o
On Wed Sep 12 2012 10:23, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> The diff below changes GCC's default behavior to -fstack-protector-all
> (i.e., add stack protection code to every function instead of just
> some based on heuristics), but you can still revert to the heuristic
> behavior by passing -fstack-protect
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 10:19:35AM +0200, Michal Mazurek wrote:
> >
> > doesn;t the code mean the check is for zero, not "less than or equal to
> > zero"?
>
>
> Oops, you're right.
>
everything else looks alright. i'll commit it soon if no one objects,
though i'd prefer it if another developer
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 08:44:17AM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> in vfs_subr.c (bear with me ;) it has:
>
> /* Lose interest in a vnode. */
> void
> vdrop(struct vnode *vp)
> {
> #ifdef DIAGNOSTIC
> if (vp->v_holdcnt == 0)
> panic(
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 08:08:48PM +0200, Michal Mazurek wrote:
> Taken from FreeBSD.
>
>
> Index: Makefile
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/share/man/man9/Makefile,v
> retrieving revision 1.171
> diff -u -p -r1.171 Makefile
> --- Makefile
