> On 25 Oct 2018, at 21:38, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
> wrote:
>
> I think Openwrt is safe. There will be a loud scream from me if it isn’t :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kevin D-B
>
In fact to prove it to myself I had a go at removing the NO_FORK compile time
option (patch attached) and had no
> On 25 Oct 2018, at 20:33, Shankar Unni wrote:
>
> On Oct 24, 2018, at 2:49 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
>
>> […]
>> The next option in my sights is NO_FORK. This produces a
>> mostly-functional binary that never forks any new processes. It was
>> added long ago to support uclinux, the MMU-less
On Oct 24, 2018, at 2:49 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
> […]
> The next option in my sights is NO_FORK. This produces a
> mostly-functional binary that never forks any new processes. It was
> added long ago to support uclinux, the MMU-less version of Linux. As far
> as I can tell, MMU-less linux is a
Thanks!
On 10/24/2018 11:39 PM, Simon Kelley wrote:
> On 24/10/2018 16:25, Petr Mensik wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I have not managed it until dnsmasq 2.80 were out, but anyway. I have
>> some proposal to simplify handling of options bits. Static analysis
>> complains on compiler dead-code optimization.
