On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 18:53 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Le Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:03:12 -0800,
> Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
>
> > > > This is not quite what Peter and I were thinking of, I think.
> > > > It's not at all generic. How about a section that simply contains
> > > >
Le Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:03:12 -0800,
Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> > > This is not quite what Peter and I were thinking of, I think.
> > > It's not at all generic. How about a section that simply contains
> > > a set of function pointers, a macro to add things to that
> > > section,
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 09:29 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Le Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:43:37 +0800,
> Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
>
> > This is not quite what Peter and I were thinking of, I think. It's not
> > at all generic. How about a section that simply contains a set of
> >
Le Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:43:37 +0800,
Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> This is not quite what Peter and I were thinking of, I think. It's not
> at all generic. How about a section that simply contains a set of
> function pointers, a macro to add things to that section, and a
> function
Le Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:43:37 +0800,
Matt Mackall [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
This is not quite what Peter and I were thinking of, I think. It's not
at all generic. How about a section that simply contains a set of
function pointers, a macro to add things to that section, and a
function that
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 09:29 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
Le Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:43:37 +0800,
Matt Mackall [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
This is not quite what Peter and I were thinking of, I think. It's not
at all generic. How about a section that simply contains a set of
function
Le Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:03:12 -0800,
Matt Mackall [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
This is not quite what Peter and I were thinking of, I think.
It's not at all generic. How about a section that simply contains
a set of function pointers, a macro to add things to that
section, and a
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 18:53 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
Le Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:03:12 -0800,
Matt Mackall [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
This is not quite what Peter and I were thinking of, I think.
It's not at all generic. How about a section that simply contains
a set of function
Matt Mackall wrote:
This is not quite what Peter and I were thinking of, I think. It's not
at all generic. How about a section that simply contains a set of
function pointers, a macro to add things to that section, and a function
that calls all the pointers in that section. Eg:
On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 12:00 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:54:30 -0800,
> "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
>
> > b) would be my first choice, and yes, it would be a good thing to
> > have a generalized mechanism for this. For the registrant, it's
On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 12:00 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
Hi,
Le Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:54:30 -0800,
H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
b) would be my first choice, and yes, it would be a good thing to
have a generalized mechanism for this. For the registrant, it's
pretty
Matt Mackall wrote:
This is not quite what Peter and I were thinking of, I think. It's not
at all generic. How about a section that simply contains a set of
function pointers, a macro to add things to that section, and a function
that calls all the pointers in that section. Eg:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Thomas Petazzoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Le Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:54:30 -0800,
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
b) would be my first choice, and yes, it would be a good thing to
have a generalized mechanism for this. For the registrant, it's
pretty easy:
* Thomas Petazzoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:54:30 -0800,
> "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
>
> > b) would be my first choice, and yes, it would be a good thing to
> > have a generalized mechanism for this. For the registrant, it's
> > pretty easy: just
* Thomas Petazzoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:54:30 -0800,
H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
b) would be my first choice, and yes, it would be a good thing to
have a generalized mechanism for this. For the registrant, it's
pretty easy: just add a macro
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Thomas Petazzoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:54:30 -0800,
H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
b) would be my first choice, and yes, it would be a good thing to
have a generalized mechanism for this. For the registrant, it's
pretty easy: just
Hi,
Le Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:54:30 -0800,
"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> b) would be my first choice, and yes, it would be a good thing to
> have a generalized mechanism for this. For the registrant, it's
> pretty easy: just add a macro that adds a pointer to a named
> section.
Hi,
Le Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:54:30 -0800,
H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
b) would be my first choice, and yes, it would be a good thing to
have a generalized mechanism for this. For the registrant, it's
pretty easy: just add a macro that adds a pointer to a named
section. We then
18 matches
Mail list logo
