> Thanks, applied. Sorry for the delay.
I'm just glad I could contribute.
On 27 November 2012 17:06, Galos, David wrote:
> That means I attached the wrong patch, here is the corrected one
Thanks, applied. Sorry for the delay.
Best regards,
Anselm
That means I attached the wrong patch, here is the corrected one
9base-compile-with-musl.diff
Description: Binary data
On 26/11/12 at 09:23pm, Galos, David wrote:
> I've attached a patch which allows 9base to be compiled with the
> musl-libc, when CC=musl-gcc and -D__MUSL__ is added to the CFLAGS.
>
> It's trivial stuff, a few missing headers, a couple changed function
> calls, and it turns out musl defines setjmp
> Is this patch against 9base hg or tarball? It seems that it fails to patch
> against the tarball.
The patch is against the hg tip.
On 26/11/12 at 09:23pm, Galos, David wrote:
> I've attached a patch which allows 9base to be compiled with the
> musl-libc, when CC=musl-gcc and -D__MUSL__ is added to the CFLAGS.
>
> It's trivial stuff, a few missing headers, a couple changed function
> calls, and it turns out musl defines setjmp
I've attached a patch which allows 9base to be compiled with the
musl-libc, when CC=musl-gcc and -D__MUSL__ is added to the CFLAGS.
It's trivial stuff, a few missing headers, a couple changed function
calls, and it turns out musl defines setjmp as a macro.
David Galos
9base-compile-with-musl.di
