From owner-freebsd-current Fri Oct 1 8: 6:58 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from ns.mt.sri.com (ns.mt.sri.com [206.127.79.91]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA5D915B24 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 08:06:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nate@mt.sri.com) Received: from mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by ns.mt.sri.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA17417; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 09:06:39 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from nate@rocky.mt.sri.com) Received: by mt.sri.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA03438; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 09:06:35 -0600 Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 09:06:35 -0600 Message-Id: <199910011506.JAA03438@mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Marcel Moolenaar Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, Bruce Evans , John Polstra , Nate Williams , Alan Cox , Peter Wemm Subject: Re: sigset_t: a summary In-Reply-To: <37F47CD8.9F676F08@scc.nl> References: <37F47CD8.9F676F08@scc.nl> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > 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