[PATCH] fix test for vfork function

Mike Frysinger vapier at gentoo.org
Fri Apr 27 05:47:17 UTC 2012

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 ;).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/uclibc/attachments/20120427/01221c73/attachment.asc>

More information about the uClibc mailing list