>
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, James Olin Oden wrote:
> > The only issue with that is how well it scales. Also, I quickly did
> > look at it and it looks like you have to provide a file per environment
> > (i.e. representing the HD). I bet you could have that file live on a NFS
> > mount, but again I
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, James Olin Oden wrote:
> > http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/
> >
> > With it, you create a series of independent virtual Linux boxes.
> >
> The only issue with that is how well it scales.
I wouldn't use it for a build environment if speed is important. :-(
There's
> >
> > Have you looked at UML (User Mode Linux)
> >
> No I haven't but that is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for.
> Not that its the perfect soultion necessarily (I still have to play
> with it), but I needed some advice from out side the box I was
> thinking in (-:
> > http://user
Have you looked at UML (User Mode Linux)
http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/
With it, you create a series of independent virtual Linux boxes.
What you load on what virtual box is up to you.
Conceptually, even kernel panics are kept isolated to their own virtual box.
I have not yet used
Chris,
As all have said, your missing the return.
Another mistake in my opinion is using == with floats.
You cannot depend on that to work.
This is just the nature of floating point numbers. In your case b is probably
20.01 or something like it.
The printf is showing 20.00 b
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, James Olin Oden wrote:
> The only issue with that is how well it scales. Also, I quickly did
> look at it and it looks like you have to provide a file per environment
> (i.e. representing the HD). I bet you could have that file live on a NFS
> mount, but again I wonder how i
>
> Have you looked at UML (User Mode Linux)
>
No I haven't but that is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for.
Not that its the perfect soultion necessarily (I still have to play
with it), but I needed some advice from out side the box I was
thinking in (-:
> http://user-mode-linux.sour
Have you looked at UML (User Mode Linux)
http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/
With it, you create a series of independent virtual Linux boxes.
What you load on what virtual box is up to you.
Conceptually, even kernel panics are kept isolated to their own virtual box.
I have not yet used
Hi All,
I have been given the task reasearching possible ways of setting
up a development environment such that:
- Multiple releases can be supported on the same machine (e.g.
the perl in the 7.3 and 7.2 on the same machine).
- Try to avoid rebuilding (and altering) the
Hi all
My problem is tht i have 100mb of rpms from cd1 and cd2 which r installed by default when no single package is selected
oknow i wanna make one bootable /installer cd with these rpms so tht the user no need to selectanything and installation happens automatically
bye
upendra
Do You Yahoo!?
S
On 14 Jun 2002, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> Chris Rode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > float toot(int x, float y) {
> >if (y == 20) {
> > return y;
> >} else {
> > toot(x, x*y); (**)
> >}
> > }
> >
> >
> > Compiled with Red Hat's gcc 2.96, I
Chris,
As all have said, your missing the return.
Another mistake in my opinion is using == with floats.
You cannot depend on that to work.
This is just the nature of floating point numbers. In your case b is probably
20.01 or something like it.
The printf is showing 20.00 b
>
> float toot(int x, float y) {
>if (y == 20) {
> return y;
>} else {
> toot(x, x*y);
>}
> }
The code itself is broken as other have said you need:
return(toot(x, x*y));
The reason it ever did work has to do with the internal mechanics
of how function calls are
Chris Rode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> float toot(int x, float y) {
>if (y == 20) {
> return y;
>} else {
> toot(x, x*y); (**)
>}
> }
>
>
> Compiled with Red Hat's gcc 2.96, I get "nan" (however, If I take out
> the recursive call, and just return
> I'm honestly not trying to resurrect some gcc 2.96 flame war or anything
> here, but I'm not a very seasoned C programmer, and I've run across an
> inconsistancy between Red Hat's version of gcc, and gcc 2.95.4 on a Debian
> system. Consider the following uninspired, pointless piece of code:
Dear Chris,
Your recurse statment should read :
return (toot (x, x * y));
instead of just :
toot (x, x * y);
Regards,
Raymond
Chris Rode wrote:
> I'm honestly not trying to resurrect some gcc 2.96 flame war or anything
> here, but I'm not a very seasoned C programmer, and I've run
16 matches
Mail list logo
