On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:44:35 EDT erik quanstrom wrote:
> > > that sucker is on the stack. by-by no-execute stack.
I don't think so. See below.
> > > how does it get to the stack? is it just copied from
> > > the text segment or is it compiled at run time?
> > >
> >
> > I don't think I posted
Thanks!
How long has the current sources server been running?
-- vs
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:31 PM, David Leimbach wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:44 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>
>> > > that sucker is on the stack. by-by no-execute stack.
>> > > how does it get to the stack? is it just copied from
>> > > the text segment or is it compiled at run time?
>>
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:44 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > > that sucker is on the stack. by-by no-execute stack.
> > > how does it get to the stack? is it just copied from
> > > the text segment or is it compiled at run time?
> > >
> >
> > I don't think I posted the whole code, so that's my bad.
> > that sucker is on the stack. by-by no-execute stack.
> > how does it get to the stack? is it just copied from
> > the text segment or is it compiled at run time?
> >
>
> I don't think I posted the whole code, so that's my bad. The X was on the
> stack to begin with as the first X was an aut
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:52 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > Did you even read the article or any of the examples? There are plenty
> > of things that you can "do" with blocks that you can't with just
> > function pointers. That's besides the fact that some of them are more
> > elegantly expressed wi
> Did you even read the article or any of the examples? There are plenty
> of things that you can "do" with blocks that you can't with just
> function pointers. That's besides the fact that some of them are more
> elegantly expressed with blocks that look sort of ugly with function
> pointe
On Sep 3, 2009, at 5:15 PM, Uriel wrote:
Exactly, I still fail to understand the point of this "feature",
function points have worked fine for ages, but then I never understood
any religion, and that is what Apple seems to be all about.
Did you even read the article or any of the examples? Ther
On Thu Sep 3 21:38:30 EDT 2009, driv...@0xabadba.be wrote:
> To ensure only one thread in the kernel at a time?
yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_lock
it allows only one kernel thread to run at a time.
the pool lock allows as many threads to run as
one would like, but they can't allocate
To ensure only one thread in the kernel at a time?
-jt-
--Original Message--
From: erik quanstrom
Sender: 9fans-boun...@9fans.net
To: 9fans@9fans.net
ReplyTo: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
Subject: Re: [9fans] "Blocks" in C
Sent: Sep 3, 2009 21:32
> what does BLK stand for?
big ke
> what does BLK stand for?
big kernel lock.
- erik
> i'll grant you this in implementation. the pool library's lock
> in effect becomes plan 9's BLK. since the pool library is used
> in the kernel and user space, a user space application gets hit
> twice. i've been doing some full-tilt boogie testing with 2x10gbe
> and even with 2 cores, the BLK
On Thu Sep 3 20:53:13 EDT 2009, r...@sun.com wrote:
> "None of those technologies [NFS, iSCSI, FC] scales as cheaply,
> reliably, goes as big, nor can be managed as easily as stand-alone pods
> with their own IP address waiting for requests on HTTPS."
>
> http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/p
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 12:44 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Thu Sep 3 12:20:09 EDT 2009, r...@sun.com wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 11:54 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > > > Plan 9 has a lot to offer and a lot for others to learn from.
> > > > Concurrency
> > > > framework that could scale
"None of those technologies [NFS, iSCSI, FC] scales as cheaply,
reliably, goes as big, nor can be managed as easily as stand-alone pods
with their own IP address waiting for requests on HTTPS."
http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petabytes-on-a-budget-how-to-build-cheap-cloud-storage/
Apart f
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 17:35 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Thu Sep 3 17:09:01 EDT 2009, r...@sun.com wrote:
> > Anything can be done using regular C and threads. The trick here
> > is to make everything *scalable* and *painless* enough so that
> > mere mortals can start benefiting from parallel
On Sep 3, 2009, at 10:02 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
in c, i don't see why such a bolt-on would be useful in
c, especially since your concurrent fifo would be limited
to one shared-memory node unless you're going to add a runtime
compiler.
It's primarily an aesthetic benefit. From
http://arst
> C shall be the test. If you don't even understand C, explained by K&R,
> then do something else.
i agree to this completely. after taking a formal course in computers,
if someone cannot read/follow K&R C book and cannot write C code, i
would think that the candidate is not good enough.
thanks
dh
On Sep 3, 2009, at 9:44 AM, David Leimbach wrote:
I'm not 100% sure why the heck they did it this way, which is
totally different from any other version of concurrent programming
setup I've seen, except maybe that Apple likes to "think different"?
This API looks a lot to me like doing even
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:45 PM, David Leimbach wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:35 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>
>> On Thu Sep 3 17:09:01 EDT 2009, r...@sun.com wrote:
>> > Anything can be done using regular C and threads. The trick here
>> > is to make everything *scalable* and *painless* en
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:35 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Thu Sep 3 17:09:01 EDT 2009, r...@sun.com wrote:
> > Anything can be done using regular C and threads. The trick here
> > is to make everything *scalable* and *painless* enough so that
> > mere mortals can start benefiting from parallelis
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:49 PM, David Leimbach wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:45 PM, David Leimbach wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:35 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu Sep 3 17:09:01 EDT 2009, r...@sun.com wrote:
>>> > Anything can be done using regular C and threads. T
Roman V Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 11:54 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> even commodity intel and amd mp offerings are numa.
>> they're not very n, but they're still n.
>
> True. But even for those platforms good SMP frameworks are quite
> difficult to come by. And here I do mean c
On Sep 3, 2009, at 1:38 PM, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
C shall be the test. If you don't even understand C, explained by K&R,
then do something else.
I'm glad this attitude exists, particularly here in the Plan 9
community, where it belongs. But I don't agree. There are many
languages b
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 04:53, plus 852 wrote:
> CC9=gcc -m32 to a $PLAN9/LOCAL.config file, but when running ./install
> I ended up with a variety of the following errors:
/Users/--/plan9/config: line 1: -m32: command not found
If LOCAL.config is a shell script, then the shell interprets "CC9
On Sep 3, 2009, at 10:13 AM, Anthony Sorace wrote:
you can do things like
data constraints and validations in the application code, rather than
in the sql database itself, which always feels like this random
bolt-on to the application logic.
I think it's useful to think of relational databas
On Thu Sep 3 17:09:01 EDT 2009, r...@sun.com wrote:
> Anything can be done using regular C and threads. The trick here
> is to make everything *scalable* and *painless* enough so that
> mere mortals can start benefiting from parallelism in their code.
>
> The other trick here is to find a model t
On Thu Sep 3 17:25:58 EDT 2009, n...@lsub.org wrote:
> Thanks a lot for maintaining it
> and for all the burden.
i second that.
- erik
Thanks a lot for maintaining it
and for all the burden.
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 11:12 PM, wrote:
> I plan to replace sources with haggis (which will take the name
> sources) during the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 8th. I will take a
> final dump of sources, shut it down, change the dns, initialis
I plan to replace sources with haggis (which will take the name
sources) during the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 8th. I will take a
final dump of sources, shut it down, change the dns, initialise
haggis's sources fossil from source's final dump score, and bring
haggis up as the new sources. This s
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 15:36 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > > > Apple's using it all over the place in Snow Leopard, in all their native
> > > > apps to write cleaner, less manual-lock code. At least, that's the
> > > > claim
> > > > :-).
> > >
> > > could someone explain this to me? i'm just m
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 4:50 PM, David Leimbach wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:36 PM, erik quanstrom
> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Apple's using it all over the place in Snow Leopard, in all their
>> > > > native
>> > > > apps to write cleaner, less manual-lock code. At least, that's the
>> > > > c
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:36 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > > > Apple's using it all over the place in Snow Leopard, in all their
> native
> > > > apps to write cleaner, less manual-lock code. At least, that's the
> claim
> > > > :-).
> > >
> > > could someone explain this to me? i'm just missing
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 02:02:53PM +, Greg Comeau wrote:
> In article <20090903120157.ga1...@polynum.com>, wrote:
> >I have the principle that, since a programming language aims to express
> >clearly what you want to be done, if the author doesn't explane clearly
> >his language, there is a p
> > > Apple's using it all over the place in Snow Leopard, in all their native
> > > apps to write cleaner, less manual-lock code. At least, that's the claim
> > > :-).
> >
> > could someone explain this to me? i'm just missing how
> > naming a block of code could change its locking properties.
>
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 11:58 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > Apple's using it all over the place in Snow Leopard, in all their native
> > apps to write cleaner, less manual-lock code. At least, that's the claim
> > :-).
>
> could someone explain this to me? i'm just missing how
> naming a block of
> it
> seems so straightforward to just send formatted sql or
> pl/sql to the engine and get normally formatted output.
I did somthing like this for mysql to access our
corperate telephone database.
I took the inferno odbcfs as an example:
http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/man/10/odbc.htm
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:02 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > The blocks aren't interesting at all by themselves, I totally agree with
> > that. However what they do to let you write a function inline, that can
> be
> > pushed to another function, to be executed on a concurrent FIFO, is where
> > the
> Apple's using it all over the place in Snow Leopard, in all their native
> apps to write cleaner, less manual-lock code. At least, that's the claim
> :-).
could someone explain this to me? i'm just missing how
naming a block of code could change its locking properties.
- erik
> This may not be your cup of tea or be artsy enough for you
> but check out what happens when tech meets arts:
>
> http://impromptu.moso.com.au/gallery.html
i enjoyed this. thanks.
> >K&R is beautiful in this respect. In contrast, I
> never managed to
> >bite in Stroustrup's description.
>
> Ok, now I'll get provocative:
> Then why do so many people have a problem understanding C?
Are you saying that there is a significant number of
people who understand C++ but not C? The
2009/9/2 erik quanstrom :
>
> what date 9atom.iso? the latest is from aug 26. it detects
> more hardware.
>
> could you send me the output of pci or lspci -nv or whatever
> offlist?
>
> - erik
>
>
I sent you the lspci -nv output private. The 9atom.iso is the latest (Aug. 26).
Thank you for your
On Thu Sep 3 12:20:09 EDT 2009, r...@sun.com wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 11:54 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > > Plan 9 has a lot to offer and a lot for others to learn from. Concurrency
> > > framework that could scale up to 1K [virtual]cores in an SMP
> > > configuration is not one of those
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Anthony Sorace wrote:
> i've not used matt's sql module itself (i should check it out) so i
> can't comment on his implementation, but... SQL is really ugly. it's
> not hard to construct something that provides the same functionality
> in a much more palatable form
> [...] but... SQL is really ugly. it's
> not hard to construct something that provides the same functionality
> in a much more palatable form. aesthetics aside, if you're dealing
> with a database-heavy app, it can make the code much easier to read.
could you explain what in particular is objecti
i've not used matt's sql module itself (i should check it out) so i
can't comment on his implementation, but... SQL is really ugly. it's
not hard to construct something that provides the same functionality
in a much more palatable form. aesthetics aside, if you're dealing
with a database-heavy app,
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 11:54 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > Plan 9 has a lot to offer and a lot for others to learn from. Concurrency
> > framework that could scale up to 1K [virtual]cores in an SMP
> > configuration is not one of those features though.
>
> forgive the ignorance, but is there any
> The blocks aren't interesting at all by themselves, I totally agree with
> that. However what they do to let you write a function inline, that can be
> pushed to another function, to be executed on a concurrent FIFO, is where
> the real power comes out.
this reminds me of paul and byron's shell
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 08:44 -0700, David Leimbach wrote:
> The blocks aren't interesting at all by themselves, I totally agree
> with that. However what they do to let you write a function inline,
> that can be pushed to another function, to be executed on a concurrent
> FIFO, is where the real p
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 07:29:53 BST Eris Discordia
wrote:
>
> I mean, I never got past SICP Chapter 1 because that first chapter got me
> asking, "why this much hassle?"
May be you had an impedance mismatch with SICP?
> P.S. I'm leaving. You may now remove your
> arts-and-letters-cootie-protec
> Plan 9 has a lot to offer and a lot for others to learn from. Concurrency
> framework that could scale up to 1K [virtual]cores in an SMP
> configuration is not one of those features though.
forgive the ignorance, but is there any such thing as a
1k-core smp machine? and is apple doing such a th
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 17:32 +0200, Uriel wrote:
> So libthread must be a figment of 9fan's imagination...
>
> Of course, for Apple (or anyone else) to learn from Plan 9 would be
> impossible, so instead they had to add a new 'feature' to C.
Plan 9 has a lot to offer and a lot for others to learn
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Uriel wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Devon H. O'Dell
> wrote:
> > 2009/9/2 Uriel :
> >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anant Narayanan wrote:
> >>> Mac OS 10.6 introduced a new C compiler frontend (clang), which added
> >>> support for "blocks" in C [1]
So libthread must be a figment of 9fan's imagination...
Of course, for Apple (or anyone else) to learn from Plan 9 would be
impossible, so instead they had to add a new 'feature' to C.
uriel
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:07 PM, David Leimbach wrote:
> Has anyone actually looked at the spec or is th
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Devon H. O'Dell wrote:
> 2009/9/2 Uriel :
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anant Narayanan wrote:
>>> Mac OS 10.6 introduced a new C compiler frontend (clang), which added
>>> support for "blocks" in C [1]. Blocks basically add closures and anonymous
>>> functions
> If the language can't be explained in 50 pages, it's no good.
If it's not possible to clearly describe the core of a computer
programming language in fifty pages, then it has probably been
embellished with features, unnecessary to the language proper, to help
it compete in the lame one-size-fits
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 8:46 PM, David Leimbach wrote:
> I mean HTTP has a small protocol, but if you count all the things you can do
> with REST, then it looks like a lot more.
HTTP might be many things, small is not one of them. That said, your
overall point is correct.
Peace
uriel
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:53 AM, plus 852 wrote:
> Has anyone had success with compiling plan9port under Mac OS X 10.6
> (Snow Leopard)? I've submitted an issue report at
> http://code.swtch.com/plan9port/issue/27/compiling-under-snow-leopard
> that provides the error messages I received. I then tri
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:52 AM, Greg Comeau wrote:
> In article <3096bd910909020751o12086713m4291e2f1b77da...@mail.gmail.com>,
> Rodolfo kix wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:29 PM, ron minnich wrote:
> >> Q: "Will C continue to be important into the future?"
> >> (Dave Kirk, Nvidia)A: "No, I t
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Uriel wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 8:46 PM, David Leimbach wrote:
> > I mean HTTP has a small protocol, but if you count all the things you can
> do
> > with REST, then it looks like a lot more.
>
> HTTP might be many things, small is not one of them. That said,
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Greg Comeau wrote:
> Ok, now I'll get provocative:
> Then why do so many people have a problem understanding C?
> Please don't seriously say they don't. In fact, these same
> arguments are used against C by those who don't care for C.
> Go figure? I think not.
>
In article ,
Skip Tavakkolian <9...@9netics.com> wrote:
>> When push comes the shove, these are probably both said in the
>> same spirit (I doubt Kirk feels C will die, nor Gates that
>> OS/2 was such (nor that MS products have no bugs))
>
>what spirit is that? the one that says "i'm a rationa
In article <20090903120157.ga1...@polynum.com>, wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 04:24:50AM -0700, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
>> i think by now most of us expect new ornamentation added to C++
>> periodically. it is surprising that this is being considered seriously
>> for C.
>
>I'd like to say that
In article ,
Brantley Coile wrote:
>If the language can't be explained in 50 pages, it's no good.
Well, that rules out C too then! :) (not even considering the library parts)
--
Greg Comeau / 4.3.10.1 with C++0xisms now in beta!
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitou
In article ,
Akshat Kumar wrote:
>Greg Comeau wrote:
>[... stuff ...]
>
>These four posts seem to be in indirect
>conversation with Charles Forsyth's,
>"one thing that gets me is that i've had
>people fulminate about the few minor
>changes in Plan 9's C compilers,
>because `they are not standard'.
http://www.picotux.com/indexe.html
--
Rodolfo García "kix"
EA4ERH - IN80ER
> P.S. I'm leaving. You may now remove your
> arts-and-letters-cootie-protection suits and go back to normal tech-savvy
> attire ;-)
that's okay. given the adverts^wposts on the list today, we may just maintain
our choate quota without you.
- erik
> I've done it a few ways. echo commit > /n/db/0/ctl is kind of where one
> ends up
>
> for my limbo postgres module I never got round to the fs part. i just
> wrap the sql bits in their own adt
i would think that rather than use an adt, one would want
to make the language the communication's p
2009/8/27 Rudolf Sykora :
> One more trial...
> Really nobody uses 'eqn' these days?...
I do or have occasionally. No idea about the problem but those mystery
problems, version differences and no progress sadly make it really
hard to seriously use roff.
--
I appear to be temporarily using gmail'
If the language can't be explained in 50 pages, it's no good.
On Sep 3, 2009, at 5:01 AM, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 04:24:50AM -0700, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
i think by now most of us expect new ornamentation added to C++
periodically. it is surprising that this is
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 04:24:50AM -0700, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
>
> i think by now most of us expect new ornamentation added to C++
> periodically. it is surprising that this is being considered seriously
> for C.
>
I'd like to say that my distate for C++ is purely technical, but to be
honest
>Perhaps he [me?] can further elaborate.
i certainly did not have comeau in mind.
> Well, this is probably not a good time to mentioned that lambdas
> and closures have been well discussed by the C++ committe with
> lots of draft wording for them in a forthcmoing C++ standard.
i think by now most of us expect new ornamentation added to C++
periodically. it is surprising that t
Oh I don't know Shoehorning a DB interface into a FS
interface doesn't feel right but stranger things have
happened.
I've done it a few ways. echo commit > /n/db/0/ctl is kind of where one
ends up
for my limbo postgres module I never got round to the fs part. i just
wrap the sql bits
> When push comes the shove, these are probably both said in the
> same spirit (I doubt Kirk feels C will die, nor Gates that
> OS/2 was such (nor that MS products have no bugs))
what spirit is that? the one that says "i'm a rational person but
will say irrational things if it helps me sell m
Greg Comeau wrote:
[... stuff ...]
These four posts seem to be in indirect
conversation with Charles Forsyth's,
"one thing that gets me is that i've had
people fulminate about the few minor
changes in Plan 9's C compilers,
because `they are not standard'"
Perhaps he can further elaborate.
a
In article <5d375e920909020532p1c3bd46l75d89db4f2243...@mail.gmail.com>,
Uriel wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anant Narayanan wrote:
>> Mac OS 10.6 introduced a new C compiler frontend (clang), which added
>> support for "blocks" in C [1]. Blocks basically add closures and anonymous
>> f
In article <8ccc8ba40909020243o275a0340jfea84860a5d2c...@mail.gmail.com>,
Francisco J Ballesteros wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anant Narayanan wrote:
>> Mac OS 10.6 introduced a new C compiler frontend (clang), which added
>> support for "blocks" in C [1]. Blocks basically add closures
In article <9ab217670909020720x6642f30fmaf855420f3d99...@mail.gmail.com>,
Devon H. O'Dell wrote:
>2009/9/2 Uriel :
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Anant Narayanan wrote:
>>> Mac OS 10.6 introduced a new C compiler frontend (clang), which added
>>> support for "blocks" in C [1]. Blocks basicall
Has anyone had success with compiling plan9port under Mac OS X 10.6
(Snow Leopard)? I've submitted an issue report at
http://code.swtch.com/plan9port/issue/27/compiling-under-snow-leopard
that provides the error messages I received. I then tried adding
CC9=gcc -m32 to a $PLAN9/LOCAL.config file, bu
In article <3096bd910909020751o12086713m4291e2f1b77da...@mail.gmail.com>,
Rodolfo kix wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:29 PM, ron minnich wrote:
>> Q: "Will C continue to be important into the future?"
>> (Dave Kirk, Nvidia)A: "No, I think C will die like Fortran has"
>
>I believe OS/2 is destined
In article <1251932394.16936.3741.ca...@work.sfbay.sun.com>,
Roman V Shaposhnik wrote:
>On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 12:11 -0700, Brian L. Stuart wrote:
>> > > Q: "Will C continue to be important into the future?"
>> > > (Dave Kirk, Nvidia)A: "No, I think C will die like
>> > Fortran has"
>> >
>> > let
In article <3096bd910909020708ja0bd77cye65f7000b...@mail.gmail.com>,
Rodolfo kix wrote:
>I don't like it, but the question is: do you need it?
>
>If you can do the same code with 8c, without much efford, then
>probably you don't need it.
Again, playing devil's advocate: That seems to argue ag
83 matches
Mail list logo
