[PATCH] fix test for vfork function

[Mike Frysinger]

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.

err, if your kernel arch doesn't have vfork, why is it defining __NR_vfork ?  
i.e. the uClibc logic should not require __UCLIBC_VFORK_USES_CLONE__.  it can 
deduce that itself by saying "if !vfork && !fork && clone".
-mike
-------------- 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/20120426/7668a580/attachment.asc>