Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:03:43 -0400 From: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.ORG>, svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG, src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: svn commit: r190943 - head/include Message-ID: <20090412040343.GA54862@zim.MIT.EDU> In-Reply-To: <20090412125047.fb6adf5a.nork@FreeBSD.org> References: <200904111657.n3BGvpsC092703@svn.freebsd.org> <20090411210702.ce5325b9.stas@FreeBSD.org> <20090412021841.673a200b.nork@FreeBSD.org> <20090412030054.GA54299@zim.MIT.EDU> <20090412125047.fb6adf5a.nork@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote: > 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 > : > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I don't understand how this is related to the problem; signal.h and sys/signal.h are not the same header, nor does one include the other.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090412040343.GA54862>