Re: [CHECKER] bugs in FreeBSD

Dawson is the man. http://www.stanford.edu/~engler/ If I have not seen as far as others, it is because I have been standing in the footprints of giants. -- from Usenet On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Xin LI wrote: > Hello, > > The tool is

Re: [CHECKER] bugs in FreeBSD

Hello, The tool is amazing :) I am very interested in how does it work, is there any paper published on this topic? Thanks in advance! Xin LI, Beijing University of Technology - Original Message - From: "Paul Twohey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 1

Re: __restrict__ vs __restrict ?

Ruslan Ermilov wrote: On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 05:23:01PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: Question: Does anyone know the difference between __restrict and __restrict__? __restrict__ is the gcc(1)-only feature. __restrict is defined in , it's the FreeBSD feature. A-ha! That's the part I had missed. Af

Re: __restrict__ vs __restrict ?

On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 05:23:01PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: > I've been enabling a LOT of gcc warnings recently > in the process of linting some code I'm writing. > In the process, I stumbled across the following > curiosity: > > > cat test.c > #include > > gcc -std=c99 -ansi test.c > In file i

__restrict__ vs __restrict ?

I've been enabling a LOT of gcc warnings recently in the process of linting some code I'm writing. In the process, I stumbled across the following curiosity: > cat test.c #include > gcc -std=c99 -ansi test.c In file included from test.c:1: /usr/include/stdio.h:220: conflicting types for `restrict'

[CHECKER] bugs in FreeBSD

Hi, I'm with the Stanford Metacompilation research group. We have a suite of checkers that find bugs at compile time and we've had quite a bit of success checking the Linux kernel code for errors. Since our checkers can emit false alarms we filter the reports before we give them to the kernel deve

[CHECKER] bugs in FreeBSD

Hi, I'm with the Stanford Metacompilation research group. We have a suite of checkers that find bugs at compile time and we've had quite a bit of success checking the Linux kernel code for errors. Since our checkers can emit false alarms we filter the reports before we give them to the kernel deve

ip_input - chksum - why is it done so early in ip_input?

Apologies for the cross-post, i wasnt sure if this was hackers or net material. I've often wondered why ip checksumming is done on every incoming packet and not only on the packets that need to be delivered locally. It looks like a very expensive way of doing it, especially on high PPS. Basicall

Re: Future of RAIDFrame and Vinum (was: Future of RAIDFrame)

Mark Linimon wrote: But, in the real world of software engineering, He Who Breaketh It, Must Fixeth It. Your mileage may vary. Yes it vaires. In the real world He Who Reaketh It, will hire someone who known what he is doing to fix the problem... ___ [EMA

Bind hack for ipv6 autoconf

I was just wondering, inspired by Saku Ytti's idea of making hack to bind which would allow proper PTR and records for rtadvd or similar autoconfigured hosts, as you can know hosts that are given are quite random, and far as I know there is no smart logic with them. So, somekinda hack for bind

Re: 5.1->5.2

"Bruce A. Mah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's in the release notes and in UPDATING...I have the feeling that if > people won't read it in either of those two places, they won't read it > in the errata either. :-p How 'bout putting it some place folks are likely to stumble upon it, like as a

Re: Mergemaster+RCS

$B1)?6$j$NNI$/$J$C$?$+$D$F$NIt2<$KD$r5-$7$?%O%k$N2s8\O?Iw$K(B $B$O!"(B"$B#1#0!s$N9XF~A}(B"$B!"(B"$BM}2r$r5a$a$k(B"$B$O;~4V2T$.$G!"2?$+$r1#$7$F$$$k>Z5r$H(B $B2rl$ON?$2$k$H;W$C$F$$$k!"A10U$KK~$A$?(B $B$O$$$k$,7hDj8"$NA4$/$J$$7/$_$?$$$J?M$HMh$F$O!"9T$+$J$$J}$,NI$$$K7h$^$C$F$$$k!#(B (B

Re: PCI interrupt allocation question..

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:14:10PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Stijn Hoop wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 03:26:00PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > The kernel includes teh ichsmb driver to try access the SMBus > > > for temperature reading reasons (yes I k

Re: 5.1->5.2

Now I can play with ULE, Thanks for your quick response. I should've checked release notes before posting my question, my fault. -mpf Robert Watson wrote: On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Matt Freitag wrote: Building 5.2-RELEASE from 5.1-RELEASE-p10 w/ipf+ipfw+ipfw6+dummynet, 5.1 Compiled fine with thi

Re: Slow Console Input

On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 10:56:36PM -0600, Michael Cacek wrote: > I recently installed freebsd 5.2 on a local sunblade 100 system. You probably want to try on the sparc64@ list. FWIW, the last time I checked syscons improvements were still on the TO-DO list for the sparc64 port. It's never really

few question about vfs layer

Hi List I explore vfs lookup code. and have few questions about it. what a reasone leave rootvnode as global varables, but not store it in filedesc structrure and adjust it in chroot or jail syscall ? -- With best regards, Alex ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] m

Re: 5.1->5.2

On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 05:04:59PM -0500, Robert Watson wrote: > > IPFILTER now relies on the PFIL_HOOKS kernel option; this is something > that is somewhat poorly documented, and we should add it to the errate I > suspect. If you add "options PFIL_HOOKS" to your kernel config, it should > work.