On Wednesday 05 July 2006 19:30, Sam Leffler wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Monday 03 July 2006 00:02, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> >> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Christian Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> : This summary makes an attempt to describe the kernel interfaces
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 08:02:55PM -0500, Derrick T. Woolworth wrote:
> Sorry for cross-posting, but these issues seem relevant for lists...
That's okay, I am not on all and I'll create some bounces, I am sure.
> Has anyone had success with SATA300 controllers with FreeBSD 6.1?
> I've been trying
On Wed, July 5, 2006 6:02 pm, Derrick T. Woolworth wrote:
> Sorry for cross-posting, but these issues seem relevant for lists...
> Has anyone had success with SATA300 controllers with FreeBSD 6.1?
> I've been trying Promise and nVidia nForce4 and I'm not having any
> luck. Using a MSI K8NGM2-L mo
Hello all,
Sorry for cross-posting, but these issues seem relevant for lists...
Has anyone had success with SATA300 controllers with FreeBSD 6.1? I've been
trying Promise and nVidia nForce4 and I'm not having any luck. Using a MSI
K8NGM2-L motherboard and others, but 6.1's installation hangs a
John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday 03 July 2006 00:02, M. Warner Losh wrote:
>> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Christian Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> : This summary makes an attempt to describe the kernel interfaces needed by
>> : the NVIDIA FreeBSD i386 graphics driver to ach
-Original Message-
>From: Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Jul 4, 2006 11:40 AM
>To: Randall Hyde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
>Subject: Re: getc in BSD (was FLEX issues)
>
>On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 11:34:41AM -0700, Randall Hyde wrote:
>>
>> The error report
On Monday 03 July 2006 00:02, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Christian Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : This summary makes an attempt to describe the kernel interfaces needed by
> : the NVIDIA FreeBSD i386 graphics driver to achieve feature parity with
>
On Saturday 01 July 2006 04:35, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Pat Lashley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > BUT, that said, the safest and most portable coding practice would be:
> >
> >// The C standard does not require malloc(0) to return NULL;
> >// but whatever it returns MUST NOT b
On 05/07/06, Daan Vreeken [PA4DAN] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 03:15, mal content wrote:
> On 03/07/06, Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For dynamic executables, you could LD_PRELOAD a .so that replaces
> > all the socket-related syscalls.
>
> Excellent suggest
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 03:15, mal content wrote:
> On 03/07/06, Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For dynamic executables, you could LD_PRELOAD a .so that replaces
> > all the socket-related syscalls.
>
> Excellent suggestion! Ok, I've created a basic .so file with the following
> code
10 matches
Mail list logo