On 14 Nov 2001, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> One other thing worth pointing out is that there is no reason for
> to include . It just needs to declare struct
> proc as an opaque structure.
I tried removing it a moth or two ago, but gave up. There was too much
secondary namespace pollution tha
On 14 Nov 2001, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
>
> One other thing worth pointing out is that there is no reason for
> to include . It just needs to declare struct
> proc as an opaque structure. Also, currently pulls in a
> lot of other headers such as and that are
> needed only because depe
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 12-Nov-01 Julian Elischer wrote:
> > On the other hand we might conceivably be able to
> > stop the export from the kernel of this struct type.
> Not unless we stop exporting struct proc since each proc has an
> embedded thread.
We don't really need
I can confirm that I can build wine and run it if
I put #ifdef _KERNEL ... #endif in sys/proc.h. I was
uncertain about whether sys/user.h was a non-standard
header file. I will probably relay Garrett's point
to the wine developers at some point.
steve
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 03:50:16PM -0800,
On 12-Nov-01 Julian Elischer wrote:
> On the other hand we might conceivably be able to
> stop the export from the kernel of this struct type.
Not unless we stop exporting struct proc since each proc has an embedded thread.
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>
>> <> <[EMAIL PROTECT
On the other hand we might conceivably be able to
stop the export from the kernel of this struct type.
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> <
>said:
>
> > I WINE developer has suggested that this is namespace
> > pollution on the part of FreeBSD, but he hasn't given
> > any details
