On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:15:28AM -0500, Daniel Dickman wrote:
>gcc uses them for precompiled headers (PCH) which is a local diff added
>by kurt@ in 2009. its likely nothing in base uses PCH but i don't know
>what in ports needs this:
This has always been a mess. I suspect it's not
> On Nov 5, 2018, at 8:47 AM, Marc Espie wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 08:43:56AM -0500, Daniel Dickman wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 5, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Marc Espie wrote:
>>>
>>> Or we could just finally remove brk and sbrk from the libc ?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> you won’t get very far. they
On 2018/11/05 11:31, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2018/11/04 10:29, Daniel Dickman wrote:
> > The below overrides the cached autoconf value that says that we have
> > sbrk(2) on our system and pretends like we don't have it.
> >
> > With this we can build tcsh without a need for sbrk(2).
> >
> >
>> On Nov 5, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Marc Espie wrote:
>>
>> Or we could just finally remove brk and sbrk from the libc ?
>>
>>
>
>you won???t get very far. they are still needed in base (gcc, clang, mkhybrid).
The goal isn't to remove it.
Rather, we want to neuter one semantic component, such
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 08:43:56AM -0500, Daniel Dickman wrote:
>
>
> > On Nov 5, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Marc Espie wrote:
> >
> > Or we could just finally remove brk and sbrk from the libc ?
> >
> >
>
> you won’t get very far. they are still needed in base (gcc, clang, mkhybrid).
The big
> On Nov 5, 2018, at 8:30 AM, Marc Espie wrote:
>
> Or we could just finally remove brk and sbrk from the libc ?
>
>
you won’t get very far. they are still needed in base (gcc, clang, mkhybrid).
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 11:31:53AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2018/11/04 10:29, Daniel Dickman wrote:
> > The below overrides the cached autoconf value that says that we have
> > sbrk(2) on our system and pretends like we don't have it.
> >
> > With this we can build tcsh without a need
On 2018/11/04 10:29, Daniel Dickman wrote:
> The below overrides the cached autoconf value that says that we have
> sbrk(2) on our system and pretends like we don't have it.
>
> With this we can build tcsh without a need for sbrk(2).
>
> ok?
Should we just remove or change the entry in
