Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Here is the "Current" /usr/include/machine/lock.h: >> ... >> void s_lock __P((struct simplelock *)); >> ... Ick. Seems like the relevant question is not so much "why did it break" as "how did it ever manage to work"? I have no problem with renaming our s_lock, if that's what it takes, but I'm curious to know why there is a problem now and not before. We've called that routine s_lock for a *long* time, so it seems like there must be some factor involved that I don't see just yet... regards, tom lane
- [HACKERS] LOCK Fixes/Break on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE Larry Rosenman
- Re: [HACKERS] LOCK Fixes/Break on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE Larry Rosenman
- [HACKERS] Re: LOCK Fixes/Break on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE Tom Lane
- [HACKERS] Re: LOCK Fixes/Break on FreeBSD 4.2-ST... Larry Rosenman
- [HACKERS] Re: LOCK Fixes/Break on FreeBSD 4.... Larry Rosenman
- [HACKERS] Re: LOCK Fixes/Break on FreeBS... Tom Lane
- [HACKERS] Re: LOCK Fixes/Break on F... Larry Rosenman
- [HACKERS] Re: LOCK Fixes/Break ... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: LOCK Fixe... Larry Rosenman
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: LOCK Fixe... Larry Rosenman
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: LOCK Fixe... Larry Rosenman
- [HACKERS] Re: LOCK Fixes/Break on FreeBSD 4.2-ST... Larry Rosenman
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: LOCK Fixes/Break on FreeBS... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: LOCK Fixes/Break on Fr... Larry Rosenman
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: LOCK Fixes/Break ... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: LOCK Fixes/Br... Larry Rosenman