Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 09:06:35 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@scc.nl> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>, Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Alan Cox <alc@cs.rice.edu>, Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Subject: Re: sigset_t: a summary Message-ID: <199910011506.JAA03438@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <37F47CD8.9F676F08@scc.nl> References: <37F47CD8.9F676F08@scc.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 1. Should the ucontext_t changes be backed out, or is this the > way we would like to go? (but only it better :-) We need something. Rather than say 'something better', I'd need to see what that better things is. However, given Bruce's comments earlier, it seems like we need to have ucontext_t to stay compatible. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199910011506.JAA03438>