The following reply was made to PR os-next/2316; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Rex Dieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: os-next/2316: As per PR#2293, NeXT is missing many POSIX
wait-associated functions, resulting in a failed compilation
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 98 15:34:12 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Synopsis: As per PR#2293, NeXT is missing many POSIX wait-associated
> functions, resulting in a failed compilation
>
> State-Changed-From-To: open-closed
> State-Changed-By: dgaudet
> State-Changed-When: Thu Jun 4 13:14:20 PDT 1998
> State-Changed-Why:
> Hey that patch doesn't look too dirty to me... I applied it
> to 1.3.1-dev with only one change -- I used ap_wait_t
> instead of wait_t to avoid potential conflicts.
Well, I didn't mean the patch was dirty, I meant that it's implementation
might be dirty: it may or may not be the cleanest way go about it... PLUS
the fact that the patch was the result of only a couple hours of work with
very little testing. (-;
If you look REAL close, you'll see that I snuck in a few other changes
into the posted patch not associated with the POSIX/wait problem. The
changes are:
1. Modified GuessOS and Configure to distiguish between NEXTSTEP 3.x (ala
nextstep3) and Openstep for Mach 4.x (ala openstep4).
2. Modified Configure to provide the proper flags for creating shared
libraries under Openstep if/wheen apache can/will ever use them...
3. A few other tiny changes to squash compiler warnings (like TRUE/FALSE
redefinitions).
---
Rex A. Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NeXT/MIME OK)
Computer System Manager http://www.math.unl.edu/~rdieter/
Mathematics and Statistics
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
