From owner-freebsd-current Tue Jul 2 3: 6:15 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E2DC37B400 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 03:06:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from salmon.maths.tcd.ie (salmon.maths.tcd.ie [134.226.81.11]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3EA8143E09 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 03:06:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iedowse@maths.tcd.ie) Received: from walton.maths.tcd.ie by salmon.maths.tcd.ie with SMTP id ; 2 Jul 2002 11:06:10 +0100 (BST) To: Julian Elischer Cc: FreeBSD current users Subject: Re: KSE status report In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 02 Jul 2002 01:57:39 PDT." Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 11:06:09 +0100 From: Ian Dowse Message-ID: <200207021106.aa15257@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message , Ju lian Elischer writes: >The big problem at the moment is that something in the >source tree as a whole, and probably something that came in with KSE >is stopping us from successfully compiling a working libc_r. >(a bit ironic really). Is the new (elm)->field.tqe_next = (void *)-1; in TAILQ_REMOVE a likely candidate? That could easily tickle old bugs in other code. The libc_r code does use a lot of TAILQ macros. Ian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message