Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1997-49,: Re: old_sigset_t vs sigset_t

# Re: old_sigset_t vs sigset_t

Steven N. Hirsch (shirsch@ibm.net)
Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:16:03 -0500 (EST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Bill Hawes: "Re: rmmod ipv6 - opps (it's still there)"
- Previous message: Richard Henderson: "Re: modutils 2.1.71 released"

On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, C. Scott Ananian wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Dec 1997 "Steven N. Hirsch" <shirsch@ibm.net> wrote:
>
> > Any and all applications using signals now require editing to compile
> > against recent 2.1.x kernels. Is this really what was intended, or is
> > there a complimentary change which must occur in one's header files?
>
> This is not so. Check your header files. The kernel change should not
> show up in user-mode applications. There is/was a byte-endian thing that
> showed up in user-land in kernel 2.1.7[01?], but that was squashed.
> Somehow your user apps are using kernel headers.
>
> > [..] I am running linux libc-5.4.33 [...]
>
> I'm running 5.4.38 with no problems.
>
> This list gets real silent when you report imaginary problems.

As you point out in a later message, libc-5.4.x headers are dependant upon
the kernel headers. If your 5.4.x installation does _not_ rely upon the
kernel headers, can you elaborate exactly where in user-land the signal
structures and calls are defined?

Steve

- Next message: Bill Hawes: "Re: rmmod ipv6 - opps (it's still there)"
- Previous message: Richard Henderson: "Re: modutils 2.1.71 released"