At Sat, 24 Aug 2019 16:28:39 +1000,
matthew green wrote:
> > Log Message:
> > Use device unit number for index.
> > The index number was too confusing such as
> > 0: [ ] audio1 @ wss0
> > 1: [*] audio0 @ yds0
> > in my PC for example. Here is new format:
> > [*] audio0 @ yds0
> > [ ] audio1 @
"Tetsuya Isaki" writes:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: isaki
> Date: Sat Aug 24 05:45:25 UTC 2019
>
> Modified Files:
> src/usr.bin/audiocfg: audiodev.c audiodev.h main.c
>
> Log Message:
> Use device unit number for index.
> The index number was too confusing such as
> 0: [
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 01:32:38PM +1000, matthew green wrote:
Should we make perror() produce a warning so people will stop using it?
No, as it is not a NetBSD specific API.
Neither is gets()
using perror() doesn't lead to fatal security flaws.
i don't see any good reason to
On Sep 12, 11:45pm, t...@zhadum.org.uk (Matthias Scheler) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/usr.bin/audiocfg
| On 11 Sep 2010, at 23:44, Christos Zoulas wrote:
|
| Well, but gets() is clearly broken by design, perror(3) isn't. And the obvi=
| ous replacement for gets(3) is fgets(3) which
On 6 Sep 2010, at 23:35, Christos Zoulas wrote:
Should we make perror() produce a warning so people will stop using it?
No, as it is not a NetBSD specific API.
Kind regards
--
Matthias Scheler http://zhadum.org.uk/
In article 5217ce1f-57c2-40bc-9281-50f90bba0...@zhadum.org.uk,
Matthias Scheler t...@zhadum.org.uk wrote:
On 6 Sep 2010, at 23:35, Christos Zoulas wrote:
Should we make perror() produce a warning so people will stop using it?
No, as it is not a NetBSD specific API.
Neither is gets()
christos
In article 20100903192037.c6aa517...@cvs.netbsd.org,
Jared D. McNeill source-changes-d@NetBSD.org wrote:
[...]
if (wlen buflen)
wlen = buflen;
- write(adev-fd, (char *)buf + off, wlen);
+ wlen = write(adev-fd, (char *)buf + off,
