> OK, thanks for the reply. Then should my printf.h move under kern/ where
> printf.c is?
I haven't looked at the changes myself. If any files have been added to
include/, it sounds like there is some inadequate review going on before
commits. Folks, don't go hog-wild when you don't really k
- Original Message -
From: "Roland McGrath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Barry deFreese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: Gnumach clean: Need advice, re Header files
include/ is for installed headers. None of those should be added.
Rol
include/ is for installed headers. None of those should be added.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
Hi again,
Looking at more of the implicit declarations of functions (and there are a
ton). The question now is, where to declare them and/or put the header
files. printf.h was a little bit of a special case because it didn't exist.
But, take, for example, panic(). It is instantiated in debu
On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 22:40 +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> [Please keep both and in the
> recipients list.]
>
> Is it feasible to have the `-fstack-protector' functionality in GNU Mach
> and GRUB2 (and how to do that, then) or shall we unconditionally pass
> `-fno-stack-protector' if available
Hi,
Stefan Reinauer, le Wed 08 Nov 2006 23:36:44 +0100, a écrit :
> * Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [061108 23:14]:
> > Thomas Schwinge, le Wed 08 Nov 2006 22:40:54 +0100, a écrit :
> > > then cat gnumach-undef-bad; exit 2; else true; fi
> > > stack_chk_fail
> > >
> > > Is it feasib
Hi,
* Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [061108 23:14]:
> Thomas Schwinge, le Wed 08 Nov 2006 22:40:54 +0100, a écrit :
> > then cat gnumach-undef-bad; exit 2; else true; fi
> > stack_chk_fail
> >
> > Is it feasible to have the `-fstack-protector' functionality in GNU Mach
> > and GRUB2
Hello!
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 11:14:19PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Thomas Schwinge, le Wed 08 Nov 2006 22:40:54 +0100, a ?crit :
> > Is it feasible to have the `-fstack-protector' functionality in GNU Mach
> > and GRUB2 (and how to do that, then) or shall we unconditionally pass
> > `-fno-s
Hi,
Thomas Schwinge, le Wed 08 Nov 2006 22:40:54 +0100, a écrit :
> then cat gnumach-undef-bad; exit 2; else true; fi
> stack_chk_fail
>
> Is it feasible to have the `-fstack-protector' functionality in GNU Mach
> and GRUB2 (and how to do that, then) or shall we unconditionally pass
> `-f
[Please keep both and in the
recipients list.]
Hello!
For some time, GCC now offers the following feature:
info Gcc
#v+
`-fstack-protector'
Emit extra code to check for buffer overflows, such as stack
smashing attacks. This is done by adding a guard variable to
functions with
arnuld, le Wed 08 Nov 2006 22:59:05 +0530, a écrit :
> also Debian HURD K10 CDs carry the date Nov 26, 2005.
That's because in the between debian switched to Xorg, which had broken
support for the Hurd. Hopefully it will be fixed in next upload of
xorg-server.
Samuel
___
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 10:59:05PM +0530, arnuld wrote:
> it seems like HURD development is stalled. also Debian HURD K10 CDs
> carry the date Nov 26, 2005. we are developing HURD since 1983,
> almost 23 years now. i think we need to change our aproach. what does
> RMS say about this?
This
it seems like HURD development is stalled. also Debian HURD K10 CDs
carry the date Nov 26, 2005. we are developing HURD since 1983,
almost 23 years now. i think we need to change our aproach. what does
RMS say about this?
and these are from ESR (http://catb.org/esr/writings/rms-bio.html):
"In
13 matches
Mail list logo
