Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 13:12:01 -0400 From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-openoffice@FreeBSD.org Cc: "Carlos F. A. Paniago" <carlos.paniago@gmail.com> Subject: Re: sal/typesconfig/typeconfig.c Message-ID: <200605231312.04403.jkim@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200605231256.41612.jkim@FreeBSD.org> References: <44733541.8000009@panix.homeunix.org> <200605231256.41612.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 23 May 2006 12:56 pm, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > On Tuesday 23 May 2006 12:16 pm, Carlos F. A. Paniago wrote: > > I`m compiling the amd64 OO-2.0-devel and I have to change this: > > in sal/typesconfig/typeconfig.c line 41: > > > > #ifndef __FreeBSD__ > > #define USE_FORK_TO_CHECK 1 > > #endif > > > > then the typesconfig program stops exiting as > > > > pid 10359 (typesconfig), uid 0: exited on signal 11 (core dumped) > > > > But this does not affect the compilation proccess. > > It does *intentionally* causes signal 11 to find out certain things > are supported or not but I believe FreeBSD doesn't have to use fork > for this test because it was Linux 2.6 kernel workaround. POSIX says: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/signal.html 'If and when the function returns, if the value of sig was SIGFPE, SIGILL, or SIGSEGV or any other implementation-defined value corresponding to a computational exception, the behavior is undefined. Otherwise, the program shall resume execution at the point it was interrupted.' I guess you should not do that even if that works in FreeBSD. :-) Jung-uk Kim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200605231312.04403.jkim>