On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 04:51:33PM -0500, Cathey, Jim wrote:
> At the bottom, some of C's arithmetical rules
> are 'stupid'. Especially as regards type
> promotion. At least they're well-defined.
No, unsigned types are just modular arithmetic. There's nothing
'stupid' or unexpected about how the
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 09:51:29PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> Hmm, I think it's a sign-extension bug. Can you try replacing
>
> tv.tv_sec = timeout_end - monotonic_sec();
>
> with
>
> tv.tv_sec = (int)(timeout_end - monotonic_sec());
>
> I suspect this will fix the behavior.
In fact, I'm g
El martes, 27 de enero de 2015, Cathey, Jim escribió:
> Because mathematically, differences are *always* signed!
>
>
>
> 2 - 1 == 1
>
> 1 - 2 == -1
>
In modulo arithmetic , addition and substraction are the same for both
unsigned and signed operands.
Assume you
Oh, and carry bits. Addition/subtraction are also precision-changing!
-- Jim
From: busybox [mailto:busybox-boun...@busybox.net] On Behalf Of Cathey, Jim
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 2:19 PM
To: Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia; Tim Hentenaar
Cc: busybox; Rich Felker
Subject: RE: [PATCH] udhcpd: Han
Because mathematically, differences are always signed!
2 - 1 == 1
1 - 2 == -1
Doesn't matter what the size, or sign-ability of the LHS
operands are. C, however, absolutely stinks at mathematical
relations that change the nature of the calculation. Precision
chan
El martes, 27 de enero de 2015, Tim Hentenaar escribió:
> Perhaps it wrongly assumes that since the operands for the subtraction
> are 32-bit unsigned integers, that the result will be also unsigned.
Uhm, why would that be a wrong assumption ?
Guillermo
--
Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia
guille.
Hello Denys,
El martes, 27 de enero de 2015, Denys Vlasenko
escribió:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia
> > wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Is there a way to make ntpd work just like ntpdate (just use the first
> > response received to set the time)? This is to set the
At the bottom, some of C's arithmetical rules
are 'stupid'. Especially as regards type
promotion. At least they're well-defined.
Absolutely true in a mathematical sense is that
the difference between two unsigned numbers is
SIGNED! But that's not what C does. You can get
around this, easy enou
>I doubt having the boot process continue with the wrong time would be
>acceptable. File timestamps will be wrong until the background process
>completes. You really want to wait synchronously for an answer.
That, of course, is not the tool-maker's call. The _system_
designer gets to decide how i
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:28:26PM +0100, Tim Hentenaar wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 09:51:29PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > Hmm, I think it's a sign-extension bug. Can you try replacing
> >
> > tv.tv_sec = timeout_end - monotonic_sec();
> >
> > with
> >
> > tv.tv_sec = (int)(timeout_end
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:26:47PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia
> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Is there a way to make ntpd work just like ntpdate (just use the first
> > response received to set the time)? This is to set the approximat
>Because we don't expect machines to run for 68 years without reboot.
Certain nameless-but-large customers out in the world, running certain
nameless Linux/busybox-based products, have experienced abject system
failures after longer runtimes. Two years is one such number. These
are generally sig
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 09:51:29PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> Hmm, I think it's a sign-extension bug. Can you try replacing
>
> tv.tv_sec = timeout_end - monotonic_sec();
>
> with
>
> tv.tv_sec = (int)(timeout_end - monotonic_sec());
>
> I suspect this will fix the behavior.
When I make th
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Is there a way to make ntpd work just like ntpdate (just use the first
> response received to set the time)? This is to set the approximate
> time at boot as quickly as possible before starting other time sensitive
While 68 years does seem a stretch, who in their right
mind wants to code implicit time-bombs into their stuff?
A vendor wants to be able to say "I'm game if you are."
(I.e., totally NOT a microsoft mentality! Which is to
say, reboot every few days else it stops working right.)
Handling monobased
We ran a 486 for some 5 years pretty much non stop in one of our server rooms.
By the time we shut it off, the switch broke and later some other part just
crumbled when we tried starting it back up. Had we left it alone, it probably
would have continued running for many more years.
- Origi
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Cathey, Jim wrote:
>>Because we don't expect machines to run for 68 years without reboot.
>
> Certain nameless-but-large customers out in the world, running certain
> nameless Linux/busybox-based products, have experienced abject system
> failures after longer run
I fire up either a cmd or power shell in windows 7.
I start 'busybox bash' and get into a shell.
I run a script then can never kill it unless I close the powershell window.
How do I kill this process if control-c won't work?
Thanks.
___
busybox mailing
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Tim Hentenaar wrote:
> if (server_config.auto_time) {
> - tv.tv_sec = timeout_end - monotonic_sec();
> tv.tv_usec = 0;
> + tv.tv_sec = 0;
> +
> + msec = monot
>> + tv.tv_sec = 0;
>> +
>> + msec = monotonic_sec();
>> + if (msec < timeout_end)
>> + tv.tv_sec = timeout_end - msec;
>
> Why are we using a 32-bit type for seconds in 2015?
Because we don't expect machines
Hmm, I think it's a sign-extension bug. Can you try replacing
tv.tv_sec = timeout_end - monotonic_sec();
with
tv.tv_sec = (int)(timeout_end - monotonic_sec());
I suspect this will fix the behavior.
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://l
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 04:02:16PM +0100, Tim Hentenaar wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 08:41:30AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:00:03PM +0100, Tim Hentenaar wrote:
> > > ---
> > > networking/udhcp/dhcpd.c | 3 +++
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff
Hello all,
Is there a way to make ntpd work just like ntpdate (just use the first
response received to set the time)? This is to set the approximate
time at boot as quickly as possible before starting other time sensitive
services.
The closest I can get is ntpd -nqp but this seems to need
5 vali
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 02:13:38PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Tim Hentenaar wrote:
> > callmonotonic_sec #
> > movl24(%rsp), %ecx # %sfp, D.9844
> > movl52+bb_common_bufsiz1(%rip), %r14d # MEM[(struct
> > server_con
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 08:41:30AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:00:03PM +0100, Tim Hentenaar wrote:
> > ---
> > networking/udhcp/dhcpd.c | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/networking/udhcp/dhcpd.c b/networking/udhcp/dhcpd.c
> > index 4b3ed2
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 02:13:38PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> With gcc 4.7.2:
>
> calludhcp_sp_fd_set #
> cmpl$0, bb_common_bufsiz1+52(%rip) #, MEM[(struct
> server_config_t * {ref-all})&bb_common_bufsiz1].auto_time
> movl%eax, %ebx #, max_sock
>
Hi Rich,
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 08:41:30AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:00:03PM +0100, Tim Hentenaar wrote:
> > ---
> > networking/udhcp/dhcpd.c | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/networking/udhcp/dhcpd.c b/networking/udhcp/dhcpd.c
> > in
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:00:03PM +0100, Tim Hentenaar wrote:
> Howdy y'all,
>
> I've noticed an interesting issue with udhcpd and auto_time.
>
> Some paths within the while loop don't go through continue_with_autotime.
> Thus, if it takes a bit too long to reset timeout_end, the monotonic
> tim
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Tim Hentenaar wrote:
> callmonotonic_sec #
> movl24(%rsp), %ecx # %sfp, D.9844
> movl52+bb_common_bufsiz1(%rip), %r14d # MEM[(struct
> server_config_t * {ref-all})&bb_common_bufsiz1].auto_time,
> movq$0, 88(
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:15:06AM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Tim Hentenaar wrote:
> > Hi Denys,
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 09:58:50PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> >> I don't understand why current code does not reach write_leases().
> >> If tv.tv_sec is
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Tim Hentenaar wrote:
> Hi Denys,
>
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 09:58:50PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>> I don't understand why current code does not reach write_leases().
>> If tv.tv_sec is negative, we should not reach select() here -
>>
>> retval
27 January 2015 -- BusyBox 1.23.1 (stable)
BusyBox 1.23.1. (git, patches, how to add a patch)
Bug fix release. 1.23.1 has fixes for ash (fixed a problem with ${#N}
expansion),
ftpd (fixed "zombie apocalypse"), modprobe (was not ignoring directory component
of path names in a few places), vi.
2
32 matches
Mail list logo
