Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:20:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Doug White <dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu> Cc: Ben Rosengart <ben@skunk.org>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: -stable to -current Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9910292118250.12797-100000@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910292027430.12517-100000@resnet.uoregon.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, Doug White wrote: > On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, Ben Rosengart wrote: > > > On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, Doug White wrote: > > > > > I still hate the way the signal change was handled. > > > > How would you have done it differently? As I understand it, the pain > > was more or less inevitable. > > Perhaps, but there must be a way to keep gcc from dying. > > I don't fully understand the mechanics involved so I will shut up until I > teach myself about the syscall handling and concoct a better solution :) Since there were syscalls added, the newly compiled gcc calls system calls in the kernel that don't exist... _yet_ I like the idea of some sort of date/version checking, but it's not being checked just yet. -Alfred 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.BSF.4.05.9910292118250.12797-100000>