Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 21:58:23 +1000 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: ache@nagual.pp.ru, bde@zeta.org.au Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, CVS-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-usrbin@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/vacation vacation.c Message-ID: <199704251158.VAA28172@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>I think that vfork() must be supported by compiler instead. > >So, right now we already have some sort of this support by default >based on current gcc behaviour. If this behaviour will be changed (more >general case you speak about), such compiler must support vfork >especially, i.e. not cross-optimizing, keeping stack frame, etc. I just noticed that gcc already has some support. Put back the vfork() in mount.c and compile with -Wall, and you will see the useful warnings that `optbuf' and `name' might be clobbered by `longjmp' or `vfork'. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704251158.VAA28172>