Visual studio an gcc can precompile include files. Gcc use is common
for c++ compilation, because c++ header parsing is much slower than C.
I think you can get some nfo about this looking for gentoo kde ricers ;)
On Jan 18, 2010, at 1:18 AM, Anders Andersson
wrote:
It's good to note th
>
> It's good to note that Apple has been putting lots of effort in to the
> llvm c compiler (clang) because it parsers header files much faster
> than gcc and the current way Apple does includes is to have one
> include file that includes everything else you'd ever need.
> Which is kind of insane.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:41:23AM +0100, Antoni Grzymala wrote:
> Sebastian Goll dixit (2010-01-17, 16:44):
>
> > On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:24:11 +0100
> > Gregor Best wrote:
> >
> > > Same thing with every other screen locker. The only "solution" is to
> > > remove the ChangeVT* mappings from the
Sebastian Goll dixit (2010-01-17, 16:44):
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:24:11 +0100
> Gregor Best wrote:
>
> > Same thing with every other screen locker. The only "solution" is to
> > remove the ChangeVT* mappings from the xmodmap.
>
> Another solution seems to be to exec into “startx” instead of ru
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 04:17:16PM +0100, Julien Pecqueur wrote:
> Hi,
Hi
> I'm using slock and i am suprised to realize that is not safe at all!
Oh, you are scary me.
> I launched slock in my DWM session. I just have to press CTRL+ALT+F1
> and press CTRL+z (to send startx in background an get
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 08:28:40PM +0100, pascal wrote:
> Le Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:50:33 +0100
> Moritz Wilhelmy a écrit:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:33:12AM -0800, Thayer Williams wrote:
> > > On Jan 17, 2010 at 07:28 AM, Premysl Hruby wrote:
> > > > On (17/01/10 16:17), Julien Pecqueur wrot
Le Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:50:33 +0100
Moritz Wilhelmy a écrit:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:33:12AM -0800, Thayer Williams wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 2010 at 07:28 AM, Premysl Hruby wrote:
> > > On (17/01/10 16:17), Julien Pecqueur wrote:
> > > > I'm using slock and i am suprised to realize that is not
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:33:12AM -0800, Thayer Williams wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2010 at 07:28 AM, Premysl Hruby wrote:
> > On (17/01/10 16:17), Julien Pecqueur wrote:
> > > I'm using slock and i am suprised to realize that is not safe at all!
> > >
> > > I launched slock in my DWM session. I just h
On Jan 17, 2010 at 07:28 AM, Premysl Hruby wrote:
> On (17/01/10 16:17), Julien Pecqueur wrote:
> > I'm using slock and i am suprised to realize that is not safe at all!
> >
> > I launched slock in my DWM session. I just have to press CTRL+ALT+F1
> > and press CTRL+z (to send startx in backgroun
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 02:10:55AM +1100, Jessta wrote:
> It's good to note that Apple has been putting lots of effort in to the
> llvm c compiler (clang) because it parsers header files much faster
> than gcc and the current way Apple does includes is to have one
> include file that includes every
On Sun 17/01/10, 16:17, Julien Pecqueur wrote:
> I launched slock in my DWM session. I just have to press CTRL+ALT+F1
> and press CTRL+z (to send startx in background an get the hand on the
> shell) and type "killall slock" to unlock the session...
The only locker known to circumvent this proble
> Not really, simply using 'startx & exit' instead of plain 'startx' is
> sufficient.
>
> -Ph
Looks the best solution... i'll to that!
--
Julien Pecqueur (JPEC)
Site: http://julienpecqueur.com
Email: j...@julienpecqueur.com
PGP:B1AA2389 (GNUPG)
IRC:jpec (irc.freenode.net)
Powered b
On (17/01/10 16:02), Rob wrote:
> Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:02:13 +
> From: Rob
> To: dev mail list
> Subject: Re: [dev] [SLOCK] is not safe
> List-Id: dev mail list
>
> > Asside from the fact, that magic sysrq can be disabled
> Oh yeah, forgot about that
>
> > how can some one use Magic S
> Asside from the fact, that magic sysrq can be disabled
Oh yeah, forgot about that
> how can some one use Magic Sysrq to access your data?
If you've prevented ctrl+alt+f1 using xmodmap or whatever, they could
use the raw terminal mode to switch to vt1 anyway
Just have it rebind all the necessary keys to break in when you run
slock and then bind them back when you're done; that way no one will
really be able to guess the proper key sequence, especially if you use
an alternative layout like dvorak. (That way they can't login if they
know your password, a
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 04:49:41PM +0100, Premysl Hruby wrote:
> [...]
> Not really, simply using 'startx & exit' instead of plain 'startx' is
> sufficient.
> [...]
Agreed, forgot about that one.
--
GCS/IT/M d- s+:- a-- C++ UL+++ US UB++ P+++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ o--
K- w--- ?O M-- ?V PS++ PE- Y++ PG
On (17/01/10 15:51), Rob wrote:
> Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:51:26 +
> From: Rob
> To: dev mail list
> Subject: Re: [dev] [SLOCK] is not safe
> List-Id: dev mail list
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm using slock and i am suprised to realize that is not safe at all!
> >
> > I launched slock in my DWM se
> Hi,
>
> I'm using slock and i am suprised to realize that is not safe at all!
>
> I launched slock in my DWM session. I just have to press CTRL+ALT+F1
> and press CTRL+z (to send startx in background an get the hand on the
> shell) and type "killall slock" to unlock the session...
>
It's incredi
On (17/01/10 16:24), Gregor Best wrote:
> Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:24:11 +0100
> From: Gregor Best
> To: dev@suckless.org
> Subject: Re: [dev] [SLOCK] is not safe
> List-Id: dev mail list
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
>
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 04:17:16PM +0100, Julien Pecqueur wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:24:11 +0100
Gregor Best wrote:
> Same thing with every other screen locker. The only "solution" is to
> remove the ChangeVT* mappings from the xmodmap.
Another solution seems to be to exec into “startx” instead of running
it within a shell. Then, there is no C-z to send it
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 04:17:16PM +0100, Julien Pecqueur wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm using slock and i am suprised to realize that is not safe at all!
>
> I launched slock in my DWM session. I just have to press CTRL+ALT+F1
> and press CTRL+z (to send startx in background an get the hand on the
> she
On (17/01/10 16:17), Julien Pecqueur wrote:
> Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:17:16 +0100
> From: Julien Pecqueur
> To: dev@suckless.org
> Subject: [dev] [SLOCK] is not safe
> List-Id: dev mail list
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm using slock and i am suprised to realize that
Hi,
I'm using slock and i am suprised to realize that is not safe at all!
I launched slock in my DWM session. I just have to press CTRL+ALT+F1
and press CTRL+z (to send startx in background an get the hand on the
shell) and type "killall slock" to unlock the session...
--
Julien Pecqueur (
2010/1/17 Anders Andersson :
> You won't run in to any problems if you do it right, when you do as
> you say. The time it takes to parse the header is probably negligible
> compared to the rest of compilation in a modern compiler and a modern
> system with disk cache etc. .
It's good to note that
24 matches
Mail list logo
