Re: COMPAT_43 and kernel compiles.

2000-08-14 Thread Mike Pritchard
On Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 06:19:37PM +1000, Darren Reed wrote: > > Darren Reed wrote: > > > > > > Is it meant to be possible to compile a kernel *without* COMPAT_43 ? > > > > > > Has anyone else tried this recently ? > > > > > > For me, it seems to break the compile in (at least) kern_sig.c I do

Re: COMPAT_43 and kernel compiles.

2000-08-13 Thread Darren Reed
In some mail from John Baldwin, sie said: > > Darren Reed wrote: > > > > Is it meant to be possible to compile a kernel *without* COMPAT_43 ? > > > > Has anyone else tried this recently ? > > > > For me, it seems to break the compile in (at least) kern_sig.c > > >From /sys/i386/conf/NOTES: >

Re: COMPAT_43 and kernel compiles.

2000-08-13 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, John Baldwin wrote: > Usually when testing a kernel compile, GENERIC is the kernel to test. > If your changes are intrusive enough, you might also want to make sure > that LINT builds ok. The LINT config file is generated from NOTES by > typing 'make LINT' in /sys/i386/conf/

Re: COMPAT_43 and kernel compiles.

2000-08-13 Thread John Baldwin
Darren Reed wrote: > > Is it meant to be possible to compile a kernel *without* COMPAT_43 ? > > Has anyone else tried this recently ? > > For me, it seems to break the compile in (at least) kern_sig.c >From /sys/i386/conf/NOTES: # # Implement system calls compatible with 4.3BSD and older vers