Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 12:12:29 +0200 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@scc.nl> To: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: -stable to -current Message-ID: <381AC48D.EC596821@scc.nl> References: <Pine.BSF.4.20.9910291303050.87707-100000@penelope.skunk.org>, <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910292027430.12517-100000@resnet.uoregon.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Yes. Don't build a gcc as part of make world that uses the new syscalls
(because it is build and linked against the *new* headers and *new*
libraries) on a system where the kernel does not have the new syscalls
itself.
> 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 :)
It's not the syscalls that are at fault here. It's `make {build}world'.
The sigset_t change was a trigger, not a bug :-)
--
Marcel Moolenaar mailto:marcel@scc.nl
SCC Internetworking & Databases http://www.scc.nl/
The FreeBSD project mailto:marcel@FreeBSD.org
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?381AC48D.EC596821>