From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9697 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2005 15:29:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 9587 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2005 15:29:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 16 Mar 2005 15:29:30 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.44 #1 (Debian)) id 1DBaSZ-000817-UH; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:29:24 -0500 Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:29:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Mitchell Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH: Guard uses of fork Message-ID: <20050316152923.GA30681@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Mitchell , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200503100400.j2A4055p021369@sirius.codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200503100400.j2A4055p021369@sirius.codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00210.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 08:00:05PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > This patch uses the HAVE_WORKING_FORK and HAVE_WORKING_VFORK macros > appropriately to guard calls to these functions. (These macros are > already being defined by autoconf; we just need to use them.) I'm > checking HAVE_WORKING_FORK, even in the case of the call to vfork in > cli-cmds.c, because autoconf will "#define vfork fork" if there's no > vfork, but there is fork. I left the CANT_FORK define in place > because that's defined by defs.h in the case __MSDOS__, and Dan says > that configure isn't run in that case. I think it could safely be > removed (as surely, on __MSDOS__, nothing will define > HAVE_WORKING_[V]FORK, but I don't have a way of testing that. I'm > happy to make that change as well, if people would like. > > OK to apply? This is OK. I'm not sure my understanding of the DJGPP bits is correct, but this patch is safe whether I was right or wrong, which is why I like it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC