This is the mail archive of the
java-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: [PATCH] to java::lang::ConcreteProcess::destroy
- From: Ronald Landheer-Cieslak <ronald at landheer dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, <java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 10:10:01 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] to java::lang::ConcreteProcess::destroy
The Makefile defines NO_SIGNALS when there is no signal support for the
current target. In fact, it tried to compile the file with -DNO_SIGNALS as
an option, and the compile broke on the kill() (which is rather logical if
you don't have signals) so I patched it up like this and it worked like a
charm :)
Might leave a couple of zombies around if there are no signals, though..
rlc
On 14 Feb 2003, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Ronald" == Ronald Landheer-Cieslak <ronald@landheer.com> writes:
>
> Ronald> I have attached a (very, very) small patch to
> Ronald> libjava/java/lang/natPosixProcess.cc which fixes a bug -
> Ronald> kill() is called from java::lang::ConcreteProcess::destroy
> Ronald> even when no signals are available. This will make the
> Ronald> compilation fail if there are no signals.
>
> What defines NO_SIGNALS? And when?
>
> Tom
>