Thanks, applied. Sorry for the delay.
I'm just glad I could contribute.
On 27 November 2012 17:06, Galos, David galos...@students.rowan.edu wrote:
That means I attached the wrong patch, here is the corrected one
Thanks, applied. Sorry for the delay.
Best regards,
Anselm
On 26/11/12 at 09:23pm, Galos, David wrote:
I've attached a patch which allows 9base to be compiled with the
musl-libc, when CC=musl-gcc and -D__MUSL__ is added to the CFLAGS.
It's trivial stuff, a few missing headers, a couple changed function
calls, and it turns out musl defines setjmp as
That means I attached the wrong patch, here is the corrected one
9base-compile-with-musl.diff
Description: Binary data
I've attached a patch which allows 9base to be compiled with the
musl-libc, when CC=musl-gcc and -D__MUSL__ is added to the CFLAGS.
It's trivial stuff, a few missing headers, a couple changed function
calls, and it turns out musl defines setjmp as a macro.
David Galos
On 26/11/12 at 09:23pm, Galos, David wrote:
I've attached a patch which allows 9base to be compiled with the
musl-libc, when CC=musl-gcc and -D__MUSL__ is added to the CFLAGS.
It's trivial stuff, a few missing headers, a couple changed function
calls, and it turns out musl defines setjmp as
Is this patch against 9base hg or tarball? It seems that it fails to patch
against the tarball.
The patch is against the hg tip.
