On Thu, 2002-12-26 at 19:02, Tim Robbins wrote: > On Thu, Dec 26, 2002 at 12:27:43PM -0600, Dan Nelson wrote: > > In the last episode (Dec 26), Donn Miller said: > > > Just tried compiling the mgv port on current. It bombs out with the > > > following error message: > > > > > > >Making all in toolbar > > > >cc -DPACKAGE=\"mgv\" -DVERSION=\"3.1.5\" -DHAVE_PUTENV=0 -DUSE_DMALLOC=0 > > > >-DHAVE_XPM=1 -DHAVE_X11_XPM_H=1 -DHAVE_MOTIF=1 -DHAVE_LIBHELP=0 > > > >-DHAVE_EDITRES=1 -I. -I. -I. -Iwlib -I/usr/X11R6/include -O2 -Os -pipe > > > >-march=pentium3 -D_POSIX_SOURCE -I/usr/X11R6/include -c Ghostview.c > > > >Ghostview.c: In function `Input': > > > >Ghostview.c:487: structure has no member named `sa_handler' > > > >Ghostview.c: In function `StopInterpreter': > > > >Ghostview.c:1529: structure has no member named `sa_handler' > > > >*** Error code 1 > > > > > > It looks like it should compile, but it doesn't. I mean, <sys/signal.h> > > > does have a #define for sa_handler. > > > > But not in the -D_POSIX_SOURCE case. Could someone with the POSIX spec > > see whether sa_handler is supposed to be visible or not? > > From the SUSv3 System Interfaces volume (excuse the bad formatting):
I don't have the spec, but a perusal of secondary sources has P1003.1-1990 specifying sa_handler and P1003.1-1993 adding sa_sigaction. I should add that sigaction() without sa_handler is almost entirely useless for portable programming, so it would be downright bizarre for POSIX to specify sigaction() and yet omit sa_handler. -- brandon s allbery [openafs/solaris/japh/freebsd] [EMAIL PROTECTED] system administrator [linux/heimdal/too many hats] [EMAIL PROTECTED] electrical and computer engineering KF8NH carnegie mellon university [better check the oblivious first -ke6sls] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
