This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Re: sig_t def'n
- From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall at rfk dot com>
- To: auto350388 at hushmail dot com, cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 11:35:07 -0400
- Subject: Re: Re: sig_t def'n
At 10:39 AM 6/3/2002, email@example.com wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>On Wed, 29 May 2002 14:39:56 -0400, "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>At 01:15 PM 5/29/2002, email@example.com wrote:
>>>In which file might I find the definition of sig_t?
>># grep -r sig_t *
>:-) Tried that, but could not find it. I wondered if there were some package
>whose source code I do not have installed which defines it.
I guess you missed my point. I didn't find it either. I was simply trying
to show you the way you could answer your original question (and any
similar questions). If you can't find a file with this definition when
searching the Cygwin installation, you can assume the definition doesn't
>>Want to provide a patch?
>Ah, but what to patch, that is the question :-)
Well, start by determining where the definition should go. I couldn't find
sig_t on my Red Hat 7 installation nor in SUSV2 so I can't help with any
specifics. But then again, maybe that route is incorrect. You might want
to review the need for the type and see if that helps you determine where
this type should be defined. Perhaps looking for it in Cygwin is not the
Larry Hall firstname.lastname@example.org
RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com
838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html