Re: HAVE_WAITPID

H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com)
17 May 1999 01:35:13 GMT


Followup to: <Pine.LNX.3.95.990516102432.3933A-100000@marvin.megadodo.umb>
By author: Kenneth Stephen <pgmr@ibm.net>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> What is the status of the HAVE_WAITPID macro? Is it the standard
> way to recognize whether the waitpid call is defined for the OS, or is
> this some arbitrary test that the fvwm95 author came up with? If it is the
> former, shouldnt it be added to features.h or something like that?
>

The latter, unless he's using autoconf, in case it's the standard way
for autoconf to report something (and it's apparently not being
tested for properly.)

-hpa

-- 
"The user's computer downloads the ActiveX code and simulates a 'Blue
Screen' crash, a generally benign event most users are familiar with
and that would not necessarily arouse suspicions."
-- Security exploit description on http://www.zks.net/p3/how.asp

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/