Re: OpenBSD's netcat in base or ports?

[Jordan K. Hubbard]

I agree.  FWIW, we bundled netcat in with Mac OS X's base distribution 
in Panther.  I got a lot of requests for it before that and it's 
already come in handy several times, so I don't regret the decision at 
all.  FreeBSD would benefit from having it in the base system.

- Jordan
On Jan 26, 2005, at 4:14 AM, Robert Watson wrote:
It's always surprised me netcat isn't in the base system -- it's a very
useful testing tool.
--
Jordan K. Hubbard
Engineering Manager, BSD technology group
Apple Computer
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Re: kernel vm question

[David Schultz]

On Fri, Jan 28, 2005, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dag-Erling Smørgrav) writes:
> > David Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > When the line is there, the compiler is probably smart enough to
> > > realize that 'x=y; y=x' is (usually) a no-op, so it optimizes away
> > > both statements.
> > Wrong.  The compiler is free to optimize away the second statement
> > provided that neither x nor y is declared volatile, but it cannot
> > optimize away the first statement.
> 
> I should add: unless it can determine with absolute certainty that x
> is not referenced later.

Exactly.  Notice that this is indeed the case for Jaques' example.
I oversimplified a bit because, as I mentioned, this is a
digression from the main point about writing to the code segment.
There's no need to be curt.
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"