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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SCC Internetworking & Databases http://www.scc.nl/
The FreeBSD project mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
