On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 09:21:35PM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> If memory serves me right, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 07:57:31AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> Haven't been to Macau...but there's lots of jade in Hong Kong too. :-)
One hour by fast boat, I was surprised. Worth
[ replying to the total thread ]
BSD/OS already has daemon(8) for years that just runs daemon(3).
I don't think it is necessary to change nohup, and go with the way BSD/OS
did it.
Mark
ps. the manpage:
daemon(8) BSD System Manager's Manualdaemon(8)
NAME
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 04:03:02PM +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> I wonder if a mentioning of -mpreferred-stack-boundary should be
> added to tuning(7)..
One first needs to decide for sure that it is an optimization.
--
-- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECT
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 09:21:35PM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> openjade is a descendent of jade (I don't think jade is being developed
> anymore). For some reason, jade has some problems running on the Alpha.
> I asked nik once why we don't just use openjade for everything...I think
> the answer
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 09:53:21AM +0200, Mark Santcroos wrote:
> BSD/OS already has daemon(8) for years that just runs daemon(3).
>
> I don't think it is necessary to change nohup, and go with the way BSD/OS
> did it.
The BSD/OS 4.1 code is also available for us to take this utility from.
To U
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 07:33:35PM +0300, Valentin Nechayev wrote:
> Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 16:03:02, roam (Peter Pentchev) wrote about "Re: function
>calls/rets in assembly":
>
> > I wonder if a mentioning of -mpreferred-stack-boundary should be
> > added to tuning(7)..
>
> This will be quite
> : I'm running -current as of an hour ago. I've gotten this since I've
> : been running 4.2-stable, any ideas on how I can find out what it
> : belongs to?
> :
> : unknown: can't assign resources
> : unknown: can't assign resources
> : unknown: can't assign resources
> : unknown: can't as
Hello,
would someone (Mark ?) finally remove this:
pam_rootok: pam_sm_authenticate: Refused; not superuser
I think it should be sent to the debug output, not a terminal. It's
quite annoying ...
Regards,
Eugene
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers"
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Eugene L. Vorokov" writes:
: Well, is there some good reason of printing those messages by default ?
: Wouldn't it be better to move this stuff to -v output ?
Because it is current and they are there to annoy certain people into
fixing it.
Warner
To Unsubscribe:
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Mike Smith wrote:
> I/O space is easy, but memory space is hard. Userspace access to
> physical memory is a big no-no in the *nix world.
I want to disagree just a bit. If you look at myrinet, or the many fpga
cards, it's the standard modus operandi. You have to do it that w
> > : unknown: can't assign resources
> >
> > Don't worry about these.
>
> Well, is there some good reason of printing those messages by default ?
Yes; the case that prints them is the same case that will complain if
there are resource conflicts for other devices as well.
> Wouldn't it be be
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Mike Smith wrote:
>
> > I/O space is easy, but memory space is hard. Userspace access to
> > physical memory is a big no-no in the *nix world.
>
> I want to disagree just a bit. If you look at myrinet, or the many fpga
> cards, it's the standard modus operandi. You have t
> would someone (Mark ?) finally remove this:
>
> pam_rootok: pam_sm_authenticate: Refused; not superuser
>
> I think it should be sent to the debug output, not a terminal. It's
> quite annoying ...
Mergemaster.
M
--
Mark Murray
Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
Thanks for your replay. I use gdb to find out that the buffer address is
not 16-byte aligned. This leads to a question as to how to align a
statically allocated data structure properly. Using union seems to be able
to align you on a long boundary (or even long long?), but that is not 16
byte alig
Would it be possible to state somewhere - maybe on the web site, the policy
for allowing posts to the mailing list ?
I'm getting a bit fed up of my posts getting bounced because the MTA
for freebsd.org doesn't like my domain name.
Robert Swindells
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 02:16:12PM -0400, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
>
> Thanks for your replay. I use gdb to find out that the buffer address is
> not 16-byte aligned. This leads to a question as to how to align a
> statically allocated data structure properly. Using union seems to be able
> to align y
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 07:33:25PM +0100, Robert Swindells wrote:
>
> Would it be possible to state somewhere - maybe on the web site, the policy
> for allowing posts to the mailing list ?
>
> I'm getting a bit fed up of my posts getting bounced because the MTA
> for freebsd.org doesn't like my
It seems Zhihui Zhang wrote:
>
> Thanks for your replay. I use gdb to find out that the buffer address is
> not 16-byte aligned. This leads to a question as to how to align a
> statically allocated data structure properly. Using union seems to be able
> to align you on a long boundary (or even lo
It seems Søren Schmidt wrote:
> It seems Zhihui Zhang wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for your replay. I use gdb to find out that the buffer address is
> > not 16-byte aligned. This leads to a question as to how to align a
> > statically allocated data structure properly. Using union seems to be able
> > t
Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 02:13:17, dev-null (David O'Brien) wrote about "Re: function
calls/rets in assembly":
> > If gcc team wants to implement proper
> > alignment to work with SSE and other high-specialized stuff,
> > they should learn commands for bitwise AND, and use only where really needed
If memory serves me right, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 09:21:35PM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> > If memory serves me right, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 07:57:31AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
>
> > Haven't been to Macau...but there's lots of jade in Hong Kong t
David O'Brien wrote:
> > If gcc team wants to implement proper
> > alignment to work with SSE and other high-specialized stuff,
> > they should learn commands for bitwise AND, and use only where
> > really needed.
>
> Perhaps you'd like to send your patch to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Perhaps you'd like
Ronald G Minnich wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Mike Smith wrote:
>
> > I/O space is easy, but memory space is hard. Userspace access to
> > physical memory is a big no-no in the *nix world.
>
> I want to disagree just a bit. If you look at myrinet, or the many fpga
> cards, it's the standard mo
On Sun, Aug 26, 2001 at 02:10:29AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
[...]
> The BSD/OS 4.1 code is also available for us to take this utility from.
Really? I didn't know they donated all of that.
Anyway it isn't a complex program. When I migrated from BSD/OS to
FreeBSD it is one of the things I mis
On 25-Aug-01 Valentin Nechayev wrote:
> Well, unnesesary stack pointer shiftings disappeared.
> After calling with additional -O1:
>
> printasint:
> pushl %ebp
> movl %esp,%ebp
> pushl 8(%ebp)
> pushl $.LC0
> call printf
> leave
> ret
>
>
hi ,
i was using linux and a great fan of it.Then i heard about this wonderful OS called FreeBSD and wanted to try it out.i thought to install it via FTP. My E: drive in my windows machine is the place where i want to install FreeBSD(i have formatted my E: ,but iam getting the chance to fdisk b
I just ported over my old patches to truss to -current that
I first posted here in May 2000:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&threadm=fa.g3c7itv.5imipd%40ifi.uio.no&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fas_q%3Dtruss%26as_uauthors%3DArun%2520Sharma
The new patch is here:
http://www.sharma-home.ne
John Baldwin wrote:
> > Well, now you should add wanted options to /etc/make.conf and avoid
> > seeing of such nightmares.
>
> Erm, the original topic of this dicussion was about attempting to use the
> assembly from the C compiler to see how things work when writing one's own
> assembly function
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 01:01:39AM +0100, I wrote:
> Hi, I'm having some problems with (what ought to be) fairly
> straightforward assembly, mainly I think, with how FreeBSD (4.3, but
> does that matter ?) does function calls (which don't work for me!)
...
Many responses.
...
Thanks for all your
29 matches
Mail list logo
