Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 12:35:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie>, FreeBSD current users <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: KSE status report Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10207021232230.15661-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0207020912391.95531-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > Good idea. > > Unforunatly someone tried to complie a libc_r with the old queue.h and it > had the same problem (or so they said). Well, it certainly looks wrong to use TAILQ_REMOVE inside of TAILQ_FOREACH, so either libc_r should be changed or queue.h should be reverted. Also, enabling the queue macro debugging will definitely break libc_r too. > On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Ian Dowse wrote: > > > In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0207020054590.94626-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>, 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 -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10207021232230.15661-100000>