Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 17:37:04 +0400 (MSD) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Bruce Evans <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: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970425172901.2877A-100000@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <199704251158.VAA28172@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, Bruce Evans wrote: > >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'. It has more support than just a warnings, vfork calling function marked and processed in the same way as setjmp calling function now (returns twice). It looks like noop right now because we not turn NON_SAVING_SETJMP define on. Perhaps we should turn it off for setjmp() and on for vfork() separately. -- Andrey A. Chernov <ache@null.net> http://www.nagual.pp.ru/~ache/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970425172901.2877A-100000>