Am 26.11.13 02:50, schrieb Lourival Vieira Neto:
Hi Folks,
Here is a patch that puts some Lua standard libraries into the kernel:
- Auxiliary library (C API);
- Base library;
- String library;
- Table library.
In the kernel, Lua states are created empty _on purpose_. So the Lua
Am 26.11.13 03:26, schrieb Lourival Vieira Neto:
Hi again..
Just a tiny patch to use luaL_register() on luacore kernel module.
Regards
You are now using the auxiliary library, which I did not include in
kernel Lua on prupose (to keep stuff smaller).
So what is the gain of including the
What is the prupose or reasoning behind the fact that multiple processes
can open a message queue for reading using mq_open()?
I wrote simple mq sender and mq receiver programs; when I start multiple
receivers on the same mq, and send a message to it, only one of the
receivers gets the message,
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 09:39:44AM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote:
What is the prupose or reasoning behind the fact that multiple processes
can open a message queue for reading using mq_open()?
You can dispatch messages from one producer to several workers (one
writer, multiple readers), or inject
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Marc Balmer m...@msys.ch wrote:
Am 26.11.13 03:26, schrieb Lourival Vieira Neto:
Hi again..
Just a tiny patch to use luaL_register() on luacore kernel module.
Regards
You are now using the auxiliary library, which I did not include in
kernel Lua on prupose
Hi Marc,
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Marc Balmer m...@msys.ch wrote:
Am 26.11.13 02:50, schrieb Lourival Vieira Neto:
Hi Folks,
Here is a patch that puts some Lua standard libraries into the kernel:
- Auxiliary library (C API);
- Base library;
- String library;
- Table library.
In
Am 26.11.13 12:13, schrieb Lourival Vieira Neto:
Hi Marc,
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Marc Balmer m...@msys.ch wrote:
Am 26.11.13 02:50, schrieb Lourival Vieira Neto:
Hi Folks,
Here is a patch that puts some Lua standard libraries into the kernel:
- Auxiliary library (C API);
-
Hi,
The question is not really kernel related. Possibly tech-userlevel@,
but neither it is related with NetBSD per se.
Marc Balmer m...@msys.ch wrote:
What is the prupose or reasoning behind the fact that multiple processes
can open a message queue for reading using mq_open()?
I wrote
Am 26.11.13 15:13, schrieb Mindaugas Rasiukevicius:
Hi,
The question is not really kernel related. Possibly tech-userlevel@,
but neither it is related with NetBSD per se.
I asked here because it is implemented in the kernel and because what I
see might as well be a buglet (given that aio
Marc Balmer m...@msys.ch wrote:
Am 26.11.13 15:13, schrieb Mindaugas Rasiukevicius:
Hi,
The question is not really kernel related. Possibly tech-userlevel@,
but neither it is related with NetBSD per se.
I asked here because it is implemented in the kernel and because what I
see
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Marc Balmer m...@msys.ch wrote:
Am 26.11.13 12:13, schrieb Lourival Vieira Neto:
Hi Marc,
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Marc Balmer m...@msys.ch wrote:
Am 26.11.13 02:50, schrieb Lourival Vieira Neto:
Hi Folks,
Here is a patch that puts some Lua standard
Why do you think it is meant to connect only two processes? It is
[...] just a FIFO queue of messages. [...]
So what is the purpose of those interface? When I inject a message,
I don't know which of the possibly many receivers is getting it?
Right. To rephrase that, when I make a request,
On 24 Nov, 2013, at 03:37 , Mouse mo...@rodents-montreal.org wrote:
[The compiler] also couldn't know if pointers whose types it did know
were referring to different members of the same union, perhaps with
the union declared in another compilation unit
The text I have says
[#5]
In article 96497888-f8c7-49f2-958b-532a2093b...@gmail.com,
Dennis Ferguson dennis.c.fergu...@gmail.com wrote:
I think getting rid of uses of the CIRCLEQ macros was the right thing
to do in any case, since code which works like that doesn't need to
exist. I'm not sure that that TAILQ macros are
What's your issue with TAILQ?
Matt
- Christos Zoulas chris...@astron.com wrote:
In article 96497888-f8c7-49f2-958b-532a2093b...@gmail.com,
Dennis Ferguson dennis.c.fergu...@gmail.com wrote:
I think getting rid of uses of the CIRCLEQ macros was the right
thing
to do in any case,
On Nov 26, 8:20pm, m...@linuxbox.com (Matt W. Benjamin) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: in which we present an ugly hack to make sys/queue.h CIRCLEQ
| What's your issue with TAILQ?
#define TAILQ_LAST(head, headname) \
(*(((struct headname *)((head)-tqh_last))-tqh_last))
#define TAILQ_PREV(elm,
Let me get on the record. It's basically ridiculous to allow GCC 4.8 to
redefine the
set of permitted C expressions such that it breaks BSD.
Matt
- Christos Zoulas chris...@zoulas.com wrote:
On Nov 26, 8:20pm, m...@linuxbox.com (Matt W. Benjamin) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: in which we
Let me get on the record. It's basically ridiculous to allow GCC 4.8
to redefine the set of permitted C expressions such that it breaks
BSD.
gcc 4.8 isn't. C99 did; what's distinctive about gcc 4.8 is that
before that gcc didn't take advantage of the leeway C99 said it had.
These macros have
18 matches
Mail list logo
