On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Isaac Richards wrote:
>First part of this is okay, but the second part isn't. union semun isn't
>defined on all OSes, so that's why it's defined the way it is currently.
>What's the reason you changed it, maybe there's a better fix?
Because on systems where union semun is defined, you are still asking the
compiler to do auto-conversion of one union type to another union type,
which is illegal in C++. Thus, it fails to build on Debian 2.1 (egcs
1.1.2). Does it work better with 2.95.2?
I thought these OS objects were supposed to be abstracted into a C++
class?
--jc
--
Jimen Ching (WH6BRR) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.freeamp.org/mailman/listinfo/freeamp-dev
