Michael McConville wrote:
I'm late to the party, but we could tidy things up a bit by moving the
function into the c file it's used in and using errx() internally.
> Index: locate/fastfind.c
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/locate/
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 07:43:46AM -0400, Michael McConville wrote:
> Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > I do not agree. You only have to remeber "that function does sensible
> > error checking" and you do not have to remember at each spot which
> > condition is the right one.
> >
> > Function are the majo
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 03:17:31PM +1000, Damien Miller wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > For a long time OpenBSD has been careful about filtering potentially-
> > hostile strings that were destined for logs or TTYs using strvis(3) and
> > friends. Unfortunat
I concur, I don't want to see a plethora of "isnumber"
"ismaybeanumber" bullshit in the tree that
do the same thing "isdigit" does.. if for whatever reason we want
isdigit to be more efficient because
the most important thing I have to do is make shell sleep more
efficient, we should fix isdigit, o
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
> /bin/sleep does a lot more work than you'd expect (just ktrace it).
>
> this is because it calls setlocale(). apparently so that isdigit() doesn't get
> confused by wacky foreigners with funny numbers.
>
> there is another solution, given that
/bin/sleep does a lot more work than you'd expect (just ktrace it).
this is because it calls setlocale(). apparently so that isdigit() doesn't get
confused by wacky foreigners with funny numbers.
there is another solution, given that the problem of identifying digits is not
particularly challengi
Index: src/share/man/man5/bsd.port.mk.5
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/share/man/man5/bsd.port.mk.5,v
retrieving revision 1.421
diff -u -p -r1.421 bsd.port.mk.5
--- src/share/man/man5/bsd.port.mk.520 Sep 2015 18:20:37 - 1.421
+++
Required for building gcc/gnat [and firefox, soon... ;p]
ok?
Index: arch/sparc/include/vmparam.h
===
RCS file: /home/vcs/cvs/openbsd/src/sys/arch/sparc/include/vmparam.h,v
retrieving revision 1.47
diff -u -p -r1.47 vmparam.h
--- arch
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 03:16:01PM -0400, Michael Reed wrote:
> Index: bsd.port.mk.5
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/share/man/man5/bsd.port.mk.5,v
> retrieving revision 1.420
> diff -u -p -r1.420 bsd.port.mk.5
> --- bsd.port.mk.5 16 Se
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 02:57:47PM +0200, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
> Sebastien Marie(sema...@openbsd.org) on 2015.09.20 14:27:01 +0200:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Mentions that using systrace(4) isn't possible when a program has called
> > tame(2).
> >
> > Comments ? OK ?
> > --
> > Sebastien Marie
> >
> >
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 02:26:38PM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> The .Nm part yes, but but flex++ is not a synonym, flex generates
> different output when called as flex++. This is already mentioned in the
> later section on C++.
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:29:12PM -0400, Rob Pierce wrot
On 2015-09-20, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Mentions that using systrace(4) isn't possible when a program has called
> tame(2).
>
> Comments ? OK ?
I think you mean "is disable*d*"
The .Nm part yes, but but flex++ is not a synonym, flex generates
different output when called as flex++. This is already mentioned in the
later section on C++.
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:29:12PM -0400, Rob Pierce wrote:
> Does this makes sense? I took the same approach used in chpass.1.
>
> Reg
Sebastien Marie(sema...@openbsd.org) on 2015.09.20 14:27:01 +0200:
> Hi,
>
> Mentions that using systrace(4) isn't possible when a program has called
> tame(2).
>
> Comments ? OK ?
> --
> Sebastien Marie
>
> Index: lib/libc/sys/tame.2
> ==
Hi,
Mentions that using systrace(4) isn't possible when a program has called
tame(2).
Comments ? OK ?
--
Sebastien Marie
Index: lib/libc/sys/tame.2
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libc/sys/tame.2,v
retrieving revision 1.27
diff -u -p -r
Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> I do not agree. You only have to remeber "that function does sensible
> error checking" and you do not have to remember at each spot which
> condition is the right one.
>
> Function are the major way of structuring code, use them.
It's not the idea of functions that I'm que
On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 05:57:23PM -0400, Michael McConville wrote:
> > What's your thinking behind this? To me this seems like a perfectly
> > rational and well motivated function to have, both for readability and
> > rather than having to repeat the same statements several times over in
> > the
17 matches
Mail list logo