On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Sheldon Givens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've successfully built it in multiple circumstances. The only thing I'm
> worried about (I'm on the road now and can't test) is what will occur if wc
> is fed a zero-length input... ie, a "touched" file or a echo "" | wc -
New diff -u:
--- /usr/src/usr.bin/wc/wc.c2004-12-27 14:27:56.0 -0800
+++ wc/wc.c 2008-12-05 14:33:21.0 -0800
@@ -62,8 +62,8 @@
#include
#include
-uintmax_t tlinect, twordct, tcharct;
-int doline, doword, dochar, domulti;
+uintmax_t tlinect, twordct, tcharct, tlongline;
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 14:14:32 -0800, "Sheldon Givens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> In the process of migrating the last of a few Linux servers to
> FreeBSD, we ran in to a bit of a snag with one of our scripts when BSD
> wc didn't have an equivalent to the Linux -L. This flag tells
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 01:14:58 +0200
Kostik Belousov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 03:10:56PM -0800, Sheldon Givens wrote:
> > What's the problem having it? The total code is mere bytes and it eases the
> > transition for others who are migrating from Linux.
> > You're absolute
I've successfully built it in multiple circumstances. The only thing I'm
worried about (I'm on the road now and can't test) is what will occur if wc
is fed a zero-length input... ie, a "touched" file or a echo "" | wc -L.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Garrett Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Kostik Belousov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 03:10:56PM -0800, Sheldon Givens wrote:
>> What's the problem having it? The total code is mere bytes and it eases the
>> transition for others who are migrating from Linux.
>> You're absolutely rig
Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Sheldon Givens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello everyone,
In the process of migrating the last of a few Linux servers to FreeBSD, we
ran in to a bit of a snag with one of our scripts when BSD wc didn't have an
equivalent to the Linux -L. This
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 03:10:56PM -0800, Sheldon Givens wrote:
> What's the problem having it? The total code is mere bytes and it eases the
> transition for others who are migrating from Linux.
> You're absolutely right in that it can be done with awk (fairly simply, too)
> but it doesn't hurt to
What's the problem having it? The total code is mere bytes and it eases the
transition for others who are migrating from Linux.
You're absolutely right in that it can be done with awk (fairly simply, too)
but it doesn't hurt to explore options. Additionally, with awk, you can't
get other figures wi
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Garrett Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Sheldon Givens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>> In the process of migrating the last of a few Linux servers to FreeBSD, we
>> ran in to a bit of a snag with one of our scripts
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Sheldon Givens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> In the process of migrating the last of a few Linux servers to FreeBSD, we
> ran in to a bit of a snag with one of our scripts when BSD wc didn't have an
> equivalent to the Linux -L. This flag tells wc to
Hello everyone,
In the process of migrating the last of a few Linux servers to FreeBSD, we
ran in to a bit of a snag with one of our scripts when BSD wc didn't have an
equivalent to the Linux -L. This flag tells wc to keep track of the longest
line in the input.
Here's a little diff to add this fu
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
Nate Eldredge wrote:
int bangbang(int x) { return !!x; }
int ternary(int x) { return x ? 1 : 0; }
Stylewise, I prefer
int notzero(int x) { return x!=0; }
icc -O0 compiles notzero the same as bangbang (better than ternary). tcc
produces
Nate Eldredge wrote:
int bangbang(int x) { return !!x; }
int ternary(int x) { return x ? 1 : 0; }
Stylewise, I prefer
int notzero(int x) { return x!=0; }
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Christoph Mallon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Garrett Cooper schrieb:
(I feel like I'm getting off on a bikeshed topic, but...)
1. What dialect of C was it defined in? Is it still used in the
standard dialect (honestly,
I posted here a month or two ago about being amazed that some system
management cards can share a physical ethernet port. Some of you responded
that it doesn't always work.
Well... I've encountered this and I'm wondering if I can work around it
somehow.
The ones that work are in Dell 1950-III se
Garret,
Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 12:50:38AM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> 1. What dialect of C was it defined in? Is it still used in the
> standard dialect (honestly, this is the first time I've ever seen it
> before, but then again I am a younger generation user)?
It is the standard negation opera
Nate Eldredge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 4 Dec 2008 14:43:
>...
> pain to clean up. '-net tap' works fine, but requires root privileges and
No.
> is more work to set up.
Yes, and this must be as root, but you can use later the tap device
as unprivileged user. (Isn't it a virtual network jac
on 05/12/2008 10:50 Garrett Cooper said the following:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 12:35:31AM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Ed Schouten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Maksim Yevmenkin <
Christoph Mallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't try to argue about style(9). IMO it's horribly outdated, but
> there are conservative forces, which would prefer to cling to K&R. At
> least we got function prototypes!
If there's something specific in style(9) you don't like, you are
welcome to
Andriy Gapon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When I start watchdogd I see the following messages:
> timer enabled
> timeout set to 28 ticks
> and then a flow of messages:
> timer reloaded
>
> Then I kill -9 watchdogd.
> "timer reloded" messages are no longer produced.
> And there are no other messag
"Garrett Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you really want to split hairs, ! only negates the logic value,
> whereas ~ actually negates the bits. So technically, you're not
> flipping 0 to make 1 and vice versa, but instead flipping 0 to make
> non-zero, etc. There is a clear distinction in
Garrett Cooper schrieb:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Christoph Mallon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Garrett Cooper schrieb:
(I feel like I'm getting off on a bikeshed topic, but...)
1. What dialect of C was it defined in? Is it still used in the
standard dialect (honestly, this is the first ti
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Christoph Mallon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Garrett Cooper schrieb:
>>
>> (I feel like I'm getting off on a bikeshed topic, but...)
>>
>> 1. What dialect of C was it defined in? Is it still used in the
>> standard dialect (honestly, this is the first time I've ever
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 12:50:38AM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 12:35:31AM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Ed Schouten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > * Maksi
Garrett Cooper schrieb:
(I feel like I'm getting off on a bikeshed topic, but...)
1. What dialect of C was it defined in? Is it still used in the
standard dialect (honestly, this is the first time I've ever seen it
before, but then again I am a younger generation user)?
Dialect? The ! operator
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 12:35:31AM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Ed Schouten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > * Maksim Yevmenkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> the idea was to ensure that
On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 12:35:31AM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Ed Schouten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Maksim Yevmenkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> the idea was to ensure that kbd->kb_locked variable only takes values
> >> 0 (zero) and 1 (one).
> >
> > I
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 12:10 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [dropped stable@ since I'm not on it and
> I suspect it may not accept non-member posts]
>
>> BTW, can someone knowledgeable tell me if watchdog better
>> be firing SMI or NMI when it runs down?
>> My bet is on NMI, but who knows.
>
>
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Ed Schouten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Maksim Yevmenkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> the idea was to ensure that kbd->kb_locked variable only takes values
>> 0 (zero) and 1 (one).
>
> I often use constructs like these to do that:
>
>foo = bar ? 1 : 0;
>
[dropped stable@ since I'm not on it and
I suspect it may not accept non-member posts]
> BTW, can someone knowledgeable tell me if watchdog better
> be firing SMI or NMI when it runs down?
> My bet is on NMI, but who knows.
It may depend on whether you want the BIOS, or FreeBSD, handling
the int
31 matches
Mail list logo
