Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 13:46:11 +0200 From: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@ulyssis.org> To: sparc64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [ports-sparc64@bento.FreeBSD.org: libticables-3.7.7_2 failed on sparc64 5] Message-ID: <20040512134611.6fdec454.tijl@ulyssis.org> In-Reply-To: <20040511222311.GA728@timesink.dyndns.org> References: <20040511010823.GB72214@xor.obsecurity.org> <20040511213757.37a2189e.tijl@ulyssis.org> <20040511222311.GA728@timesink.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:23:11 +0200, Thomas Moestl wrote: > On Tue, 2004/05/11 at 21:37:57 +0200, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > > > Apparently src/sys/sparc64/include/sysarch.h uses > > utrap_entry_t and utrap_handler_t without defining them. They are > > however defined in src/sys/sparc64/utrap.h. > > > > So I'm wondering, should I file a PR for my port to include > > machine/utrap.h(?) before machine/sysarch.h in case > > of a sparc64 build (or get rid of it since it is only used on > > i386), or is this a bug and should > > src/sys/sparc64/include/sysarch.h include machine/utrap.h > > (probably wrapped inside an #ifndef _KERNEL)? > > Since machine/sysarch.h is by definition architecture dependent, it > would probably be best to include it only when it is needed (i.e. in > the i386 case). Ok, thanks, I was just wondering since there aren't any build errors on other platforms.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040512134611.6fdec454.tijl>