search for: distateful

...This is what I alluded to [in a previous comment] - saying that if you move the driver down to ring1, then you should move _everything_ down to ring1 and just leave a microkernel at ring0. Now, I''m not big on microkernels, but a pure virtual machine abstraction is at least not the distateful academic mental masturbation that we saw in the 80''s. --- end --- Cheers, James Scott Purveyor of Non-distasteful Academic Mental Masturbation ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net hel...

On 7 July 2017 at 05:06, Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 02:02:52PM +0200, Sergio Oller wrote: > > Hi, > > > > As comments are welcome I will give my two cents and a patch suggestion > :-) > > > > 2017-07-06 10:42 GMT+02:00 Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org>: > > > > > > > > > I

...upported by it. I *really* hate the idea of getting into yet another discussion about yet another new make system. I like (and am imprssed by) you folks here on this list, you're very polite and knowledgeable, but getting into another flamewar which really reveals no new arguments is just too distateful for me. I don't want to get involved with CMake on any level, beyond running it. Honestly. I *will* state, with full honesty, that every time I've looked at any other new make environment (where they *ALWAYS* state they are more powerful). Did you think that CMake is alone in supporting...

> OK, I checked the llvm-2.5 Makefiles. They have constructs in them which cannot > be used in any BSD Makefile (such as the form of conditionals: ifndef is a GNU > Makeism), and won't run on any BSD Make. I know BSD Make and GNU Make well > enough, but I doon't know much about Cmake, I can say that all of the makefiles > I saw in llvm would (1) refuse to run on BSD make