regarding "HURD"

hai all, this is my 1st post here. i also sent this email to "L4-HURD" mailing list. i am simply putting it here to know what your views are: yesterday, i searched last months archives of this mailing list which gave me an insight into the the conversation happened here & also i came to know som

[task #5726] GCC built-in functions

Update of task #5726 (project hurd): Percent Complete: 20% => 60% To be done before: It's done for memcpy/memset, but there are other functions, like printf (Barry is working on that one) and others (memcmp, ...) => It's done for memcpy/memse

Re: Gnumach clean-up Round 2

On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 23:58 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Thomas Bushnell BSG, le Tue 07 Nov 2006 14:31:49 -0800, a écrit : > > On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 17:20 -0500, Barry deFreese wrote: > > > Third time is a charm? > > > > I thought it was decided that we should use the Posixy name strings.h > >

Re: Gnumach clean-up Round 2

Thomas Bushnell BSG, le Tue 07 Nov 2006 14:31:49 -0800, a écrit : > On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 17:20 -0500, Barry deFreese wrote: > > Third time is a charm? > > I thought it was decided that we should use the Posixy name strings.h > instead of the BSDy name string.h. I don't have the real posix book,

Re: Gnumach clean-up Round 2

On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 17:20 -0500, Barry deFreese wrote: > Third time is a charm? I thought it was decided that we should use the Posixy name strings.h instead of the BSDy name string.h. Thomas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part _

Re: Gnumach clean-up Round 2

Barry deFreese, le Tue 07 Nov 2006 17:20:45 -0500, a écrit : > Third time is a charm? Looks fine to me, except a few indentation fixups I'll do before committing if nobody has any problem with the patch. Samuel ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.o

Re: Gnumach clean-up Round 2

Third time is a charm? * kern/debug.c New function do_cnputc(). * kern/strings.h Remove file * ddb/db_output.c Include printf.h and remove forward declaration for _doprnt() * include/stdio.h New file * include/string.h New declarations: * strcmp, strlen, strncmp, strcpy, strncopy, s

Re: Gnumach clean-up Round 2

Here is a patch for another round of cleanup. This gets rid of warnings for strcmp, strlen, and printf. * include/printf.h New file * include/string.h New declarations: * strcmp, strlen, strncmp, strcpy, strncopy, strsep, strchr, strrchar * chips/busses.c Include string.h and printf.h

Re: Gnumach clean-up Round 2

--- Barry deFreese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here is a patch for another round of cleanup. This > gets rid of warnings for > strcmp, strlen, and printf. > > * include/stdio.h New file > * include/string.h New declarations: > * strcmp, strlen, strncmp, strcpy, strncopy, > strsep,

Re: Gnumach clean-up Round 2

- Original Message - From: "Thomas Bushnell BSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:42 PM Subject: Re: Gnumach clean-up Round 2 On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 12:18 -0500, Barry deFreese wrote: Here is a patch for another round of cleanup. This gets rid of warnings

Re: Gnumach kern/strings.h

Thomas Bushnell BSG, le Tue 07 Nov 2006 09:33:31 -0800, a écrit : > On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 10:26 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Claudio Fontana, le Mon 06 Nov 2006 19:14:04 -0800, a écrit : > > > is this to be the regular header that application developers include > > > under your sy

Re: Gnumach clean-up Round 2

On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 12:18 -0500, Barry deFreese wrote: > Here is a patch for another round of cleanup. This gets rid of warnings for > strcmp, strlen, and printf. I don't think we should have a file called unless it's going to support all of stdio. is a much better name for a header that in

Re: Gnumach kern/strings.h

On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 10:26 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Hi, > > Claudio Fontana, le Mon 06 Nov 2006 19:14:04 -0800, a écrit : > > is this to be the regular header that application developers include > > under your system to see all standard string functions declared? > > Nope, that's only for

Gnumach clean-up Round 2

Here is a patch for another round of cleanup. This gets rid of warnings for strcmp, strlen, and printf. * include/stdio.h New file * include/string.h New declarations: * strcmp, strlen, strncmp, strcpy, strncopy, strsep, strchr, strrchar * chips/busses.c Include string.h and stdio.h *

Re: Update on glue code

Barry deFreese wrote: Does this mean you are done with the 2.6 driver code? ;-) Barry deFreese (aka bddebian) Hello Barry, My questions about pthreads came up due to something i happened to read resently. These questions have nothing to do with driver code and just fill in some blanks i have

Re: [task #5487] cthreads -> pthreads

At Tue, 7 Nov 2006 15:36:03 +0100, Richard Braun wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 03:53:02PM +0200, Constantine Kousoulos wrote: > > That wasn't what i meant. I would like to know what are the major > > things that *don't* work. Can someone enlighten me on that subject? > > I know ;-). I would als

Re: [task #5487] cthreads -> pthreads

- Original Message - From: "Constantine Kousoulos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 8:21 AM Subject: Re: [task #5487] cthreads -> pthreads Thomas Schwinge wrote: Follow-up Comment #1, task #5487 (project hurd): Attached is the work that Vicente Hernando Ara

Re: [task #5487] cthreads -> pthreads

On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 03:53:02PM +0200, Constantine Kousoulos wrote: > That wasn't what i meant. I would like to know what are the major > things that *don't* work. Can someone enlighten me on that subject? I know ;-). I would also like to know, otherwise I would have told you. > Does the curre

Re: [task #5487] cthreads -> pthreads

Richard Braun wrote: On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 03:21:29PM +0200, Constantine Kousoulos wrote: What exactly does the term "mostly functional implementation" mean? Many things work, a few don't. That wasn't what i meant. I would like to know what are the major things that *don't* work. Can some

Re: [task #5487] cthreads -> pthreads

On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 03:21:29PM +0200, Constantine Kousoulos wrote: > What exactly does the term "mostly functional implementation" mean? Many things work, a few don't. > Has anyone considered using GNU Portable Threads > (http://www.gnu.org/software/pth/) with the Hurd? Maybe they are > eas

Re: [task #5487] cthreads -> pthreads

Constantine Kousoulos, le Tue 07 Nov 2006 15:21:29 +0200, a écrit : > Has anyone considered using GNU Portable Threads > (http://www.gnu.org/software/pth/) with the Hurd? Maybe they are > easier to become "fully functional" since they are "portable". Sorry to say that, but it's contradictory :)

Re: [task #5487] cthreads -> pthreads

Thomas Schwinge wrote: Follow-up Comment #1, task #5487 (project hurd): Attached is the work that Vicente Hernando Ara has been doing years ago, see . This link is obsolete. From Savannah (http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?54

Re: [Savannah-users] CIA?

Hi, On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 11:45:59PM +0100, Sylvain Beucler wrote: > We'd need a version of CIA: > > - that support the new CVS 'loginfo' hook format (CIA's version > doesn't, the original pasky version does AFAICS). Savannah's > installation of CVS uses the new format and other loginfo script

Re: Gnumach kern/strings.h

Hi, Claudio Fontana, le Mon 06 Nov 2006 19:14:04 -0800, a écrit : > is this to be the regular header that application developers include > under your system to see all standard string functions declared? Nope, that's only for kernel use, but I'd say it should follow C standard, so that people are