This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: PATCH: Guard uses of fork
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:29:23 -0500
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Guard uses of fork
- References: <200503100400.j2A4055p021369@sirius.codesourcery.com>
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