Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 19:10:36 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Kevin Day <toasty@shell.dragondata.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, bde@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: function name collision on "getcontext" with ports/editors/joe Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10202101904500.29495-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20020211070518.F9189-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Daniel Eischen wrote:
>
> > Hmm, <sys/signal.h> includes <sys/ucontext.h>. I'm not sure why though.
> > bde might know.
>
> <sys/signal.h> includes <machine/signal.h> for the normal namespace
> pollution that was needed to use sigreturn(2) (except sigreturn(2)
> itself isn't actually declared anywhere). Including <sys/ucontext.h>
> gives the corresponding namespace pollution for using the current
> sigreturn(2). This is probably a mistake. (Don't believe the
> sigreturn man page; it documents osigreturn(2) for the i386 only.)
> Programs shouldn't have any problems with this, since they should
> define _POSIX_SOURCE if they only want the POSIX namespace ;-).
Poking about on a Solaris 8 system shows that they have a
<ucontext.h> that defines the {get,set,make,swap}context
prototypes. <ucontext.h> also includes <sys/ucontext.h>
to get the definitions for ucontext_t.
Under FreeBSD, <ucontext.h> is a link to <sys/ucontext.h>,
which both declare ucontext_t and {get,set,make,swap}context.
What do you recommend we do? Should we not include <sys/ucontext.h>
from <sys/signal.h>, or do what Solaris does, or just leave
everything as is?
--
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.4.10.10202101904500.29495-100000>