Re: stdarg.h and -nostdinc

Stefan Reinauer  writes:
> ron minnich  [040211 16:22]:
> > I can't think of anything better. My wish list is to try to remove 
> > GNU-isms so I can build this on Plan 9, but at the same time we keep 
> > hitting these issues.
> >
> > If we are determined to include things like stdarg.h, I would rather carry 
> > our own copy around than depend on the OS we're using. So for the moment I 
> > would say "there is nothing better".
>
> It seems the next thing bites me here is that the va_* macros get
> resolved into gcc's builtin_va* stuff. Which, as you could guess, is
> disabled with the -nobuiltins flag we pass to gcc.  What I don't really
> get yet is why I don't get unresolved symbols with this, but rather just
> no output at all. Lets see...

Just off the top of my head __builtin variants should continue to
be recognized with -fnobuiltins.

Guys do we need a developer list?  I'm trying to figure out why
more of the conversations I find myself involved in are not on
the public list.  Is it a signal to noise ratio problem?

I'm just annoyed that the conversations that pass through
my inbox not being on the public list seem to be more about
linuxbios than the conversations on the LinuxBIOS list.

Eric

stdarg.h and -nostdinc

[Tarl Neustaedter]

> I'm trying to figure out why
> more of the conversations I find myself involved in are not on
> the public list.  Is it a signal to noise ratio problem?

More likely reflex; posting to the general list leaves your
email address exposed on the web for spammers to find and add
to their lists. The ~130 spams I receive every day have
sharpened my reflexes into almost never sending emails
to public aliases.

If we change the publically-available discussion lists to
not expose the email addresses of the senders, you'll have
fewer people like myself sending to you before sending to
the alias.
    tarl

stdarg.h and -nostdinc

[Peter Stuge]

On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 12:45:32PM -0500, Tarl Neustaedter wrote:
> More likely reflex; posting to the general list leaves your
> email address exposed on the web for spammers to find and add
> to their lists. The ~130 spams I receive every day have
> sharpened my reflexes into almost never sending emails
> to public aliases.

Start using statistical spam filters. I use bogofilter and dropped the
daily spam count from close to the hundreds to one or two!

I trained it with 200+ MB of spam and ~2GB of ham when I started out
though, so it may take a while for anyone starting out fresh to get those
results, I like it a lot just the same! :)

For Windows clients, there's K9 (keir.net/k9.html) which is a POP proxy
implementing the same algoritm as bogofilter.

//Peter

spam - was: stdarg.h and -nostdinc

Peter Stuge wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 12:45:32PM -0500, Tarl Neustaedter wrote:
> > More likely reflex; posting to the general list leaves your
> > email address exposed on the web for spammers to find and add
> > to their lists. The ~130 spams I receive every day have
> > sharpened my reflexes into almost never sending emails
> > to public aliases.
>
> Start using statistical spam filters. I use bogofilter and dropped the
> daily spam count from close to the hundreds to one or two!
>
> I trained it with 200+ MB of spam and ~2GB of ham when I started out
> though, so it may take a while for anyone starting out fresh to get those
> results, I like it a lot just the same! :)
>
> For Windows clients, there's K9 (keir.net/k9.html) which is a POP proxy
> implementing the same algoritm as bogofilter.

I probably shouldn't expand this off-topic thread, but oh well...

Filters don't help those of us on dial-up connections.  It can take a 
long time to download 100's of spams.

Ty