On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 06:13:53PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
>during booting is to call out a verbose boot. If I do that, then the boot
>messages DO print during booting, and examination afterwards shows a big
>file (~ 60K in size). This happens if I use /boot.config==-v, or if I
>enter option #5
Markus Hoenicka wrote:
Alexander Kabaev writes:
> As designed. atexit should not be used by shared objects that do not
> expect themselves to live until actual exit() happens. ELF provides
> proper _init/_fini sections to support shared object
> initialization/destruction.
>
That is, the
John Baldwin writes:
> need this. If you used a regular old static C++ singleton on 6.x instead of
> trying to be cute and call atexit() directly you would be fine. I've no
> idea
> if Linux treats atexit() special.
>
Just to make it clear: it is not me trying to be cute but the Firebir
Alexander Kabaev wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:20:51 -0800
Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Markus Hoenicka wrote:
Alexander Kabaev writes:
> As designed. atexit should not be used by shared objects that do
> not expect themselves to live until actual exit() happens. ELF
> provide
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:20:51 -0800
Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Markus Hoenicka wrote:
> > Alexander Kabaev writes:
> > > As designed. atexit should not be used by shared objects that do
> > > not expect themselves to live until actual exit() happens. ELF
> > > provides proper _
On Monday 31 December 2007 05:20:51 pm Julian Elischer wrote:
> Markus Hoenicka wrote:
> > Alexander Kabaev writes:
> > > As designed. atexit should not be used by shared objects that do not
> > > expect themselves to live until actual exit() happens. ELF provides
> > > proper _init/_fini sectio
Markus Hoenicka wrote:
Alexander Kabaev writes:
> As designed. atexit should not be used by shared objects that do not
> expect themselves to live until actual exit() happens. ELF provides
> proper _init/_fini sections to support shared object
> initialization/destruction.
>
That is, the
Alexander Kabaev writes:
> As designed. atexit should not be used by shared objects that do not
> expect themselves to live until actual exit() happens. ELF provides
> proper _init/_fini sections to support shared object
> initialization/destruction.
>
That is, the only real solution to this
Markus Hoenicka wrote:
I've been redirected by Giorgos Keramidas to this list after reporting
a problem on the freebsd-questions list. I'd greatly appreciate if you
could have a look at the following problem. Apparently programs are
doomed to segfault on FreeBSD if dlopen()ed modules install exit
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:35:10 +0100
"Markus Hoenicka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been redirected by Giorgos Keramidas to this list after reporting
> a problem on the freebsd-questions list. I'd greatly appreciate if you
> could have a look at the following problem. Apparently progra
Hi,
I've been redirected by Giorgos Keramidas to this list after reporting
a problem on the freebsd-questions list. I'd greatly appreciate if you
could have a look at the following problem. Apparently programs are
doomed to segfault on FreeBSD if dlopen()ed modules install exit
handlers via atexit
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 08:30:35PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Kostik Belousov wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 05:38:43PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
>>> Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 01:12:04PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 12:14
Hi,
Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 05:38:43PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 01:12:04PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 12:14:11AM -0800, Kip Macy wrote:
I.e., it seems that gcc does not feel too guilty gener
"Aryeh M. Friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Aryeh M. Friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > All hashs have issues with pooling see
> > > http://www.burtleburtle.net/bob/hash/index.html... btw it is a
> > > old wives tale that the n
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 05:38:43PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 01:12:04PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> >>On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 12:14:11AM -0800, Kip Macy wrote:
> >
> >I.e., it seems that gcc does not feel too guilty generating una
Hi,
Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 01:12:04PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 12:14:11AM -0800, Kip Macy wrote:
I.e., it seems that gcc does not feel too guilty generating unaligned
half-word writes on i386. :(
this should not be a problem inside a cach
On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 11:18:08PM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:37:18 +0100 Bernd Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 01:55:06PM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > > Ok, I'm a bit confused. Since you're talking about moving code from
> > > the x86 to the alp
17 matches
Mail list logo
