> > - compiler update
> > - boost update to 1.44
There's a typo in the log message (1.43),
but it IS boost 1.44.
Peter
Am Montag, den 25.10.2010, 20:30 +0200 schrieb Peter Kümmel:
> Am Montag, den 25.10.2010, 14:33 +0200 schrieb Pavel Sanda:
> > Most probably Peter,
> >
> > is there some way how to get rid of this:
>
> maybe
> - compiler update
> - boost update to 1.44
I've updated boost. (Updating boost was ne
Am Montag, den 25.10.2010, 14:33 +0200 schrieb Pavel Sanda:
> Most probably Peter,
>
> is there some way how to get rid of this:
maybe
- compiler update
- boost update to 1.44
- using Qt signals
- suppressing the warning -Wno-ignored-qualifiers
> CXXForkedCalls.o
> /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc
On Thursday 31 October 2002 12:25 pm, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | I see that nobody has commented on my zombies patch.
> | Shall I just apply it?
>
> why not...
Ok. But before I do, I think that the current code leaks. I've got this
right too, haven't I? (See below).
Angus
// generate child
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| If execvp fails, shouldn't we ensure that the child returns an
| appropriate exit value? Wouldn't this also fix the crash we currently
| experience if execvp fails?
>
| #ifndef __EMX__
| pid_t cpid = ::fork();
| if (cpid == 0) { // child
|
