busybox compile error form ARM core???

[Peter S. Mazinger]

On Tue, 30 May 2006, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:

> 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

maybe a generic BB_USE_MMU in platform.h that gathers all the possible 
conditions for non-MMU case?

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