Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> This appears to be, unfortunately, necessary. >> >> The missing item in your research is that Linux 2.6 now (just now) >> passes the information in the new format. Not all of the registers >> which were necessary actually fit inside the old definition. It had to >> change.
OK, that's understandable, if unfortunate. :-/ >> The fact that they broke source compatibility is a bit annoying. And >> there's no good flag that you need the new kernel in order to use the >> new interface. Complain to libc-alpha and Paul/Steve if you want. Paul >> tells me that binary compatibility should continue to work, and that >> seems to be true, via the uc_regs pointer. > > However, breaking source compatibility was not necessary. I'm > discussing this with the kernel maintainer (Paul) now. Thanks. Let me know if there's anything I should do to help. Cheers, Christophe -- http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/ +44 1223 510 299/+44 7729 383 757 (set-pprint-dispatch 'number (lambda (s o) (declare (special b)) (format s b))) (defvar b "~&Just another Lisp hacker~%") (pprint #36rJesusCollegeCambridge) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]