2006/8/2, chefren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On 08/01/06 22:57, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
>
> > this is the funniest post i've read on misc@ in a while.
>
> That was why I put "Amen" below it...
>
> ..
A little bit of trolling never hurts anyone ;)
On 08/01/06 22:57, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
this is the funniest post i've read on misc@ in a while.
That was why I put "Amen" below it...
..
sounds like it's already under way with google "monitor me six ways from sunday"
desktop. overt centralization of anything is dangerous, especially c
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 03:57:34PM -0500, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
> Original message
> >Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:19:11 +0200
> >From: chefren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: OpenBSD's own compiler
> >To: misc@openbsd.org
> &
Original message
>Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:19:11 +0200
>From: chefren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: OpenBSD's own compiler
>To: misc@openbsd.org
>
>On 08/01/06 16:48, Anton Karpov wrote:
>
>> This world sucks. We're living in a dark age
On 08/01/06 16:48, Anton Karpov wrote:
This world sucks. We're living in a dark ages, playing with the same
technologies as 20 years ago. UNIX is still here. Gcc is still here. C is
still here. And it will always be the same.
This world needs something really new. Maybe nuclear war is the answe
> you (and your kids) will go greyhair before you get halfway thru it.
>
> so can you people fucking shuddup and do smth useful now plz?
This world sucks. We're living in a dark ages, playing with the same
technologies as 20 years ago. UNIX is still here. Gcc is still here. C is
still here. And
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 06:32:45PM -0300, Andr??s wrote:
> We should convince both the Free Software Foundation and the Open
> Source Initiative that "Lucent Public License Version 1.02" is not a
> free software license. Mainly based in Theo's arguments*.
>
> This paragraph says it all:
>
> And c
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 06:32:45PM -0300, Andris wrote:
> * [9fans] The new ridiculous license
> http://9fans.net/archive/2003/06/270
interno ships the same compiler code and has a more liberal license
http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/downloads.html
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 15:04, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > I'm becoming slightly more cynical about testing any piece of C code with
> > optimization turned on in GCC.
>
> And you think this will be different with anyother compiler, you have to
> be joking.
>
> -- Pinski
> a GCC developer that actua
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 15:32, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On 7/31/06, David Leung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, that's not an uncommon result of code that doesn't meet the
> synchronization requirements of pthreads.
It was a piece of code given to us as a part of our OS class assignment. I
On 7/31/06, David Leung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am not a regular GCC user, but my recent experience with it has been quite
bitter. Recently I came across a piece of code that only produces correct
results with optimization turned on.
Yeah, that's not an uncommon result of code that doesn't
> I'm becoming slightly more cynical about testing any piece of C code with
> optimization turned on in GCC.
And you think this will be different with anyother compiler, you have to
be joking.
-- Pinski
a GCC developer that actually tries to take pride in the recent development of
GCC
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 10:08, R. Tyler Ballance wrote:
> I really don't want to start a holy war, but I am an idealist, and I
> don't think "we" as a community should settle for something like the
> GNU Compiler Collection (which I use every day, with about a 50/50
> love-hate relationship).
I
Section 4 (commercial distribution) with its beautiful "certain
responsibilities" is still there.
Section 7 (export control) is still there.
On 7/31/06, Ted Unangst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/31/06, AndrC)s <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We should convince both the Free Software Foundation an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 31, 2006, at 4:32 PM, Andris wrote:
We should convince both the Free Software Foundation and the Open
Source Initiative that "Lucent Public License Version 1.02" is not a
free software license. Mainly based in Theo's arguments*.
I most cer
On 7/31/06, Andris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We should convince both the Free Software Foundation and the Open
Source Initiative that "Lucent Public License Version 1.02" is not a
free software license. Mainly based in Theo's arguments*.
* [9fans] The new ridiculous license
http://9fans.net/arc
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:35:29AM -0500, R. Tyler Ballance wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> >>I was wondering, would it be a stupid and bad idea, for the
> >>OpenBSD team to
> >>develope, an OpenBSD C compiler based upon the OpenBSD security
> >>knowledge
> >>and i
We should convince both the Free Software Foundation and the Open
Source Initiative that "Lucent Public License Version 1.02" is not a
free software license. Mainly based in Theo's arguments*.
This paragraph says it all:
And come on it says "certain responsibilities". Good god. Are you
people
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 31, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Rogier Krieger wrote:
On 7/31/06, R. Tyler Ballance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jeeez, talk about an overreaction to the suggestion. [...] It's
not that far
fetched of an idea
Given the times that this question popp
On 7/31/06, R. Tyler Ballance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jeeez, talk about an overreaction to the suggestion. [...] It's not that far
fetched of an idea
Given the times that this question popped up in the archives, Mickey's
reaction isn't too surprising. From the past discussions, I gather
that
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:35:29AM -0500, R. Tyler Ballance wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> >>I was wondering, would it be a stupid and bad idea, for the
> >>OpenBSD team to
> >>develope, an OpenBSD C compiler based upon the OpenBSD security
> >>knowledge
> >>and i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I was wondering, would it be a stupid and bad idea, for the
OpenBSD team to
develope, an OpenBSD C compiler based upon the OpenBSD security
knowledge
and internal standards regarding the language?
yeah we will just drop everything we do now, qu
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 02:12:47PM +0100, Steve Fairhead wrote:
> Rico Secada [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> >> I read about how Ada is been used in all areas where safety is of great
> issue, and about how it's being used in rockets, Boing Airplanes and so on
> because of it's high level of safety.
Rico Secada [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>> I read about how Ada is been used in all areas where safety is of great
issue, and about how it's being used in rockets, Boing Airplanes and so on
because of it's high level of safety.
What I understood from it is, that the demand and control upon compilers,
Rico Secada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:37:46 +0200
> From: Rico Secada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: misc@openbsd.org
> Subject: OpenBSD's own compiler
...
> I am curently studying the Ada programming language and I read about the
> diffe
An OpenBSD C compiler from scratch, AFAIK, is not an idea of the
project. Today, I read about Theo's interest in Plan 9' C compiler.
But, there are license problems, so, that is not possible; at least,
right now.
A source tree in Ada, I think, would be safer. But maybe it is not as
portable/well-
Hi
I am curently studying the Ada programming language and I read about the
different safety demands, which has been made a standard, upon compilers.
I read about how Ada is been used in all areas where safety is of great issue,
and about how it's being used in rockets, Boing Airplanes and so
27 matches
Mail list logo
