So which should I use? Why is there two around? I see that truss has
less command line switches than ktrace, but it is a little bit more
standard.
I also see that truss works with the linux syscalls where ktrace does
not
remap the syscall names.
- JimP
--
--- @(#) $Id: dot.signature,v 1.10 200
setting
it there before without any luck (but I do not remember the value
that I used). I may do some more investigating on it.
- JimP
> From: Jim Pirzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: math library difference between linux emulation and native
> freebsd (and native linux) Date:
So the solution to my problem was to set the __INITIAL_NPXCW__ to
0x37F. What I can think of is that the freebsd binary sets
the Control Word to this before running but the linux binary
does not (because it is assumed to already be set by the kernel
at boot time). So I would think the linux ker
On Saturday, July 14, 2001, at 11:58 AM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> Yes, I tried out the program
>
> #include
> #include
> main() {
> double x,y;
> int i;
>
> x = 53.278500;
> y = exp(x);
> printf("%8lf\n",x);
> for(i=0;i printf("%x ",((unsigned char*)(&x))[i]);
> prin
On Saturday, July 14, 2001, at 11:19 AM, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 11:09:22AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> So I have stumbled across a linux emulation bug in freebsd. Below
>> is the program that returns different results based on FreeBSD,
>> Linux or Linux emulation
On Saturday, July 14, 2001, at 11:23 AM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> The correct answer to the level of accuracy you quote is:
> 137581029243568295877658.36934931
>
> Both are correct to about 15 sig figs, which is about what the precision
> of IEEE double precision arithmetic is supposed
On Saturday, July 14, 2001, at 11:17 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/14/2001
>at 11:09 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
>> So I have stumbled across a linux emulation bug in freebsd. Below is
>> the program that returns different results based on FreeBSD, Linux or
On Saturday, July 14, 2001, at 11:19 AM, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 11:09:22AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> So I have stumbled across a linux emulation bug in freebsd. Below
>> is the program that returns different results based on FreeBSD,
>> Linux or Linux emulation
So I have stumbled across a linux emulation bug in freebsd. Below
is the program that returns different results based on FreeBSD,
Linux or Linux emulation under FreeBSD.
Running natively under FreeBSD:
x = 53.2785
exp(x) = 137581029243568449912832.
Running natively under Linux:
x
I though in the past when you installed a new kernel that the
sysctl kern.bootfile was changed to be /kernel.old (this is
under FreeBSD 4.3-RELEASE), but looking at the makefile, this
is no longer the case. Was this done for a reason?
- JimP
--
--- @(#) $Id: dot.signature,v 1.10 2001/05/17 2
>
> Ahh.. Recompile it? Or is it binary only?
Yep binary only.
- JimP
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
> On 22-Feb-01 Greg Lehey wrote:
> > > /compat/linux/
> > > /usr/bin/gdb, it says the core file is in the wrong format:
> > >
> > > Couldn't fetch registers from core file: File in wrong format
> > > Couldn't fetch register set 2 from core file: File in wrong format
> > >
> > > So what is the cor
I have a question on how to debug Linux binaries. I have a core
file from the linux binary, but if I use the FreeBSD gdb, it cannot
find the shared libraries in /compat/linux/ If I use the /compat/linux/
/usr/bin/gdb, it says the core file is in the wrong format:
Couldn't fetch registers f
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > I was wondering if there is anyone working on AutoFS for FreeBSD. We
> > currently have 4 studios with around 1000 unix systems of all kinds.
> > Currently there are only 2 OSes that do not have autofs, FreeBSD and one
> > that is known for its numbe
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Konstantin Chuguev wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > No, I think he means the kernel VFS layer based AutoFS... ala SUN
> > which was ported to AIX and I'm sure a bunch more platforms..
> >
>
> Besides of shell's uglish look of paths resolved from symbolic links created
Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 05:24:06PM -0700, Jim Pirzyk wrote:
> > > I was wondering if there is anyone working on AutoFS for FreeBSD. We
> > > currently have 4 studios with around 1000 unix systems of all kinds.
> > > Currently there are only 2 OSes that do not have autof
I was wondering if there is anyone working on AutoFS for FreeBSD. We
currently have 4 studios with around 1000 unix systems of all kinds.
Currently there are only 2 OSes that do not have autofs, FreeBSD and one
that is known for its number crunching capabilties (and those are being
phased out of
sb_max)
return (0);
- JimP
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: kern.ipc.maxsockbuf setting does not work
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:21:02 -0700
From: Jim Pirzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I am running a 4.1-RELEASE i386 system and I am trying to increase the
maxsockbuf size so I se
18 matches
Mail list logo
