On 27/11/2012 23:08, Keith Packard wrote: > Jon TURNEY writes: > >> os/utils.c: Fix compilation of OsBlockSIGIO when SIGIO isn't defined > > This should probably look like this instead, to avoid compilers > complaining about unreachable code: > > diff --git a/os/utils.c b/os/utils.c > index 3c520ad..0d77b84 100644 > --- a/os/utils.c > +++ b/os/utils.c > @@ -1227,10 +1227,10 @@ OsBlockSIGIO(void) > sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, &set, &PreviousSigIOMask); > ret = sigismember(&PreviousSigIOMask, SIGIO); > return ret; > - } else > - return 1; > + } > #endif > #endif > + return 1; > }
Good point. >> Yaakov Selkowitz (2): >> hw/xwin: use raise instead of signal > > This should be fine (it's in POSIX.1-2001 according to the Linux > raise(3) man page). If we find a system this breaks on, it will be easy > to fix (testing for raise in the c library and using it only if present). I'm not quite sure what you are telling me here. Since this code is in hw/xwin, it's only ever going to be compiled for Windows targets, anyhow. Since raise() is in C89, I hope systems that it isn't available on are rare :-) (Also, it looks like I made a mistake when writing the comment, as it should say "use raise() instead of kill()" to match the code) > The other patches were also Reviewed-by: Keith Packard <[email protected]> Thanks for taking the time to review these. _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
