On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:00:54 -0400
> > > Can't we just put a patch in ports tree itself? What meant under 'no
> > > clean solution emerged'? I can prepare a patch, if needed.
> > I think so, too. I have a quick hack patch.
> As I mentioned to vd@ on 3/20, I'd prefer something like
> that. Does your proposed patch also work for the ports that depend
> on GNU Pth, some of which may depend on signal.h?
Yes, no problem! Pth required singal.h's definision(SIGINT,
SIGQUIT, ...), and it was already token care in pthread.h.in
like following:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
/*
* Protect namespace, because possibly existing vendor Pthread stuff
* would certainly conflict with our defintions of pthread*_t.
*/
#define pthread_t __vendor_pthread_t
:
#include <sys/signal.h> /* for sigset_t */
:
/*
* Unprotect namespace, so we can define our own variants now
*/
#undef pthread_t
:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
