busybox compile error form ARM core???

[Rob Landley]

On Tuesday 30 May 2006 4:03 pm, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> > 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.

How do I avoid caring?  Or more accurately, what's the least amount of 
internal uClibc knowledge I can get away with encoding into busybox's 
platform.h?

I categorically don't care about unreleased svn versions of anything.  Period.  
They're just not real.  So I'm going to assume that on uClibc, #ifndef 
__ARCH_HAS_MMU__ means that daemon() isn't there, and otherwise it is.  If 
future releases of uClibc go off and breaks this in certain configurations, 
we're not under an obligation to build with those configurations.

> Peter

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.