busybox compile error form ARM core???

[Peter S. Mazinger]

On Tue, 30 May 2006, Bernhard Fischer wrote:

> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 10:01:50AM +0200, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> >On Tue, 30 May 2006, Rob Landley wrote:
> >
> >> On Tuesday 30 May 2006 2:20 am, yangm wrote:
> 
> >> 
> >>   if (!(opt & 2)) {
> >> #if defined(__uClinux__)
> >
> >for uClibc-svn non-MMU the condition to use the internal version would be
> >
> >#if defined __UCLIBC__ && !defined __ARCH_USE_MMU__
> >
> >Peter
> >
> >>     /* reexec for vfork() do continue parent */
> >>     vfork_daemon_rexec (0, 0, argc, argv, "-f");
> >> #else
> >>     daemon (0, 0); /* bb_xdaemon? */
> >> #endif /* uClinux */
> >>   } else {
> 
> Landley, what do you think?
> 
> in platform.h, 
> /* uclibc does not implement daemon for no-mmu systems. */
> #if defined __UCLIBC__ && !defined __ARCH_USE_MMU__
> #define BB_DAEMON(no_chdir, no_close, argc, argv, str) \
> 	vfork_daemon_rexec(no_chdir, no_close, argc, argv, str)
> #else
> #define BB_DAEMON(no_chdir, no_close, argc, argv, str) \
> 	daemon(no_chdir, no_close)
> #endif
> 
> Alternatively, we can of course introduce an int bb_daemon(d,c,ac,av,s){} to libbb
> which does the same (may be bigger than the proposal above, didn't try).

for 0.9.28 (release) the best you can have is !defined __ARCH_HAS_MMU__
in svn both __ARCH_HAS_MMU__ and __ARCH_USE_MMU__ are defined, but only 
USE means that daemon() will exist.

Peter

-- 
Peter S. Mazinger <ps dot m at gmx dot net>           ID: 0xA5F059F2
Key fingerprint = 92A4 31E1 56BC 3D5A 2D08  BB6E C389 975E A5F0 59F2