On Sun, Apr 12, 2009, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote: > On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:00:54 -0400 > > > > Can't we just put a patch in ports tree itself? What meant under 'no > > > > clean solution emerged'? I can prepare a patch, if needed. > > > I think so, too. I have a quick hack patch. > > As I mentioned to vd@ on 3/20, I'd prefer something like > > that. Does your proposed patch also work for the ports that depend > > on GNU Pth, some of which may depend on signal.h? > > Yes, no problem! Pth required singal.h's definision(SIGINT, > SIGQUIT, ...), and it was already token care in pthread.h.in > like following: > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > /* > * Protect namespace, because possibly existing vendor Pthread stuff > * would certainly conflict with our defintions of pthread*_t. > */ > #define pthread_t __vendor_pthread_t > : > #include <sys/signal.h> /* for sigset_t */ > : > /* > * Unprotect namespace, so we can define our own variants now > */ > #undef pthread_t > : > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I don't understand how this is related to the problem; signal.h and sys/signal.h are not the same header, nor does one include the other. _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
