From owner-freebsd-current Sat Oct 30 3:24:52 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail.scc.nl (node1374.a2000.nl [62.108.19.116]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B367714CBA for ; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 03:24:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-current@scc.nl) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mail.scc.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA86613 for current@FreeBSD.org; Sat, 30 Oct 1999 12:12:37 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd-current@scc.nl) Received: from GATEWAY by dwarf.hq.scc.nl with netnews for current@FreeBSD.org (current@FreeBSD.org) To: current@FreeBSD.org Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 12:12:29 +0200 From: Marcel Moolenaar Message-ID: <381AC48D.EC596821@scc.nl> Organization: SCC vof Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: , Subject: Re: -stable to -current Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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