On Thursday 26 April 2012 10:14:30 Mark Salter wrote: > A few places in the code check for existence of vfork by testing if > __NR_vfork is defined. Newer kernels don't have a vfork syscall in > which case, the library implements the vfork function using __NR_clone. > > This patch adds a test for __UCLIBC_VFORK_USES_CLONE__ feature > definition which an architecture may define if vfork is implemented > using clone.
all these fall backs are for linux-2.0. i'm not sure we care (pretty sure we don't) let alone still compile, so i'd say just drop the logic (i.e. assume vfork() exists). if anyone turns up who does care about linux-2.0, we'll make them do the footwork for not screwing over linux-3.0+ users ;). -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
