In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daniel Molina Wegener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: Hello,
:
:I need information about few things, I hope someone can help
: me and thanks in advance.
:
: a) Is there any function or variable that tells me which is the
:root user UID in the s
2007/7/26, John-Mark Gurney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Victor Loureiro Lima wrote this message on Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 12:14 -0300:
> 2007/7/24, John-Mark Gurney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Victor Loureiro Lima wrote this message on Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 16:35
> >-0300:
> >> 2007/7/24, John-Mark Gurney <[EM
Victor Loureiro Lima wrote this message on Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 12:14 -0300:
> 2007/7/24, John-Mark Gurney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Victor Loureiro Lima wrote this message on Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 16:35
> >-0300:
> >> 2007/7/24, John-Mark Gurney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >Daniel Molina Wegener wrote
2007/7/24, John-Mark Gurney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Victor Loureiro Lima wrote this message on Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 16:35 -0300:
> 2007/7/24, John-Mark Gurney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Daniel Molina Wegener wrote this message on Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 20:52
> >-0400:
> >> a) Is there any function or var
Victor Loureiro Lima wrote this message on Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 16:35 -0300:
> 2007/7/24, John-Mark Gurney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Daniel Molina Wegener wrote this message on Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 20:52
> >-0400:
> >> a) Is there any function or variable that tells me which is the
> >>root user
2007/7/24, John-Mark Gurney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Daniel Molina Wegener wrote this message on Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 20:52 -0400:
> a) Is there any function or variable that tells me which is the
>root user UID in the system, or root always have 0 and it's
>an "elegant" option to compare the
Daniel Molina Wegener wrote this message on Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 20:52 -0400:
> a) Is there any function or variable that tells me which is the
>root user UID in the system, or root always have 0 and it's
>an "elegant" option to compare the variables or structure
>members against zero.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:37:53AM -0500, Ben Kaduk wrote:
> On 7/23/07, Darren Pilgrim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Daniel Molina Wegener wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > >I need information about few things, I hope someone can help
> > > me and thanks in advance.
> > >
> > > a) Is there any f
On 7/23/07, Darren Pilgrim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel Molina Wegener wrote:
> Hello,
>
>I need information about few things, I hope someone can help
> me and thanks in advance.
>
> a) Is there any function or variable that tells me which is the
>root user UID in the system, or root
Daniel Molina Wegener wrote:
Hello,
I need information about few things, I hope someone can help
me and thanks in advance.
a) Is there any function or variable that tells me which is the
root user UID in the system, or root always have 0 and it's
an "elegant" option to compare the vari
Hello,
I need information about few things, I hope someone can help
me and thanks in advance.
a) Is there any function or variable that tells me which is the
root user UID in the system, or root always have 0 and it's
an "elegant" option to compare the variables or structure
members
Lowell Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>C-99 requires a fully specified type before the unspecified array (and
>requires said array to be the last element in the structure). So this
>example is *not* valid in C99, but the following would be:
>
>struct foo {
>int bar;
>char ar
Harti Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This should be
>
> struct foo {
> char array[];
> };
>
> according to C-99, on which gcc2 barfs. Don't know, whether gcc3 can
> handle this.
C-99 requires a fully specified type before the unspecified array (and
requires said array to be the las
Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 09:35:29AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > : I think it is still there (and my draft copy says the same thing).
> > : I was thinking
>>> Zero length arrays
>>> are undefined.
>>
>> Well, yes, but the quesiton is *why* they are undefined.
>> They are undefined only because ANSI says that they are.
>> But why did they say so?
>
> They didn't really. They just didn't say that zero-length arrays are
> allowed. (This might be cha
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 09:35:29AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : I think it is still there (and my draft copy says the same thing).
> : I was thinking about the original C89 standard which does not allow
On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote:
MWL>In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MWL>Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MWL>: I think it is still there (and my draft copy says the same thing).
MWL>: I was thinking about the original C89 standard which does not allow it
MWL>: (and
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: I think it is still there (and my draft copy says the same thing).
: I was thinking about the original C89 standard which does not allow it
: (and does not allow incomplete array types in structs). Guess I sh
On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 10:29:18AM +0100, Harti Brandt wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2002, Erik Trulsson wrote:
>
> ET>On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 10:27:17AM -0700, Ian wrote:
> ET>> >
> ET>> > In :
> ET>> >
> ET>> > /*
> ET>> > * pargs, used to hold a copy of the command line, if it had a sane
> ET>> > * l
On Sun, 3 Mar 2002, Erik Trulsson wrote:
ET>On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 10:27:17AM -0700, Ian wrote:
ET>> >
ET>> > In :
ET>> >
ET>> > /*
ET>> > * pargs, used to hold a copy of the command line, if it had a sane
ET>> > * length
ET>> > */
ET>> > struct pargs {
ET>> > u_int ar_ref; /* Referen
Thanks for all the very interesting followups, folks. I learned something
today!
I really must start reading this list more often. :-)
--
Conrad Sabatier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bennett's Laws of Horticulture:
(1) Houses are for people to live in.
(2) Gardens are for plants to li
Terry Lambert wrote:
| Order of structure elements is undefined. Zero length arrays
| are undefined. Also, packing is undefined.
Close, but no cigar. The /order/ is defined in C89 (Section
6.5.2.1) with the following words:
Within a structure object, the non-bit-field members and the
"Brian T.Schellenberger" wrote:
> I can't even imagine how one *would* write a compiler where this would
> fail--does anybody know the putative risk that led ANSI to "ban" this (IMHO)
> perfectly-reasonable bahvior?
Order of structure elements is undefined. Zero length arrays
are undefined. Als
On Sunday 03 March 2002 01:00 pm, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 10:27:17AM -0700, Ian wrote:
> > > In :
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * pargs, used to hold a copy of the command line, if it had a sane
> > > * length
> > > */
> > > struct pargs {
> > > u_int ar_ref; /* Reference
On Sunday 03 March 2002 10:19 am, Conrad Sabatier wrote:
> Am I just completely stupid, or do we have a few things that could use a
> little cleaning up in /usr/include as well as in the man page for kvm_*?
>
> System: FreeBSD 4.5-STABLE
>
> 2) If compiling with the -pedantic switch, one might see
On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 10:27:17AM -0700, Ian wrote:
> >
> > In :
> >
> > /*
> > * pargs, used to hold a copy of the command line, if it had a sane
> > * length
> > */
> > struct pargs {
> > u_int ar_ref; /* Reference count */
> > u_int ar_length; /* Length */
> > u_char ar_ar
>
> In :
>
> /*
> * pargs, used to hold a copy of the command line, if it had a sane
> * length
> */
> struct pargs {
> u_int ar_ref; /* Reference count */
> u_int ar_length; /* Length */
> u_char ar_args[0]; /* Arguments */
> };
>
> This does indeed seem to make little o
Am I just completely stupid, or do we have a few things that could use a
little cleaning up in /usr/include as well as in the man page for kvm_*?
System: FreeBSD 4.5-STABLE
1) The man page for the kvm_* functions lists the following #include
dependencies:
#include
#include
#
28 matches
Mail list logo
