This is the mail archive of the java-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] [!SA_SIGINFO] fix

From: Samuel Thibault <samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org>
To: David Daney <ddaney at avtrex dot com>
Cc: java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 19:39:20 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [!SA_SIGINFO] fix
References: <20070808214559.GJ3838@interface.famille.thibault.fr> <46BB4DCB.6080208@avtrex.com>

David Daney, le Thu 09 Aug 2007 10:24:27 -0700, a écrit :
> >@@ -110,7 +110,11 @@
> > // sigwait() on SIGCHLD.  The information passed is ignored as it
> > // will be recovered by the waitpid() call.
> > static void
> >+#ifdef SA_SIGINFO
> > sigchld_handler (int sig, siginfo_t *si, void *third)
> >+#else
> >+sigchld_handler (int sig)
> >+#endif
> .
> .
> .
> Should this be done with an autoconf check?

Mmm, I don't see the benefit of #ifdef HAVE_SA_SIGINFO vs #ifdef SA_SIGINFO.

Samuel

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] [!SA_SIGINFO] fix
  - From: Tom Tromey

References:
- [PATCH] [!SA_SIGINFO] fix
  - From: Samuel Thibault
- Re: [PATCH] [!SA_SIGINFO] fix
  - From: David Daney

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]