On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 09:50:07AM +0200, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Chris Li <christ.li@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Uwe Kleine-König <uwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> + } elsif ($spec eq 'gnu/kfreebsd') {
> >> + return &add_specs ('unix') .
> >> + ' -D__FreeBSD_kernel__=1'
> >
> > This looks good. I will apply it.
> > I don't have FreeBSD to test it though.
>
> FYI, this is not really FreeBSD, it's Debian's GNU/kFreeBSD:
> GNU for userland with a FreeBSD kernel.
ack
> > I assume you do
> > the sufficient testing on it already.
>
> Yes, my point of view too.
FTR: The difference is:
(sid_k-a-dchroot)ukleinek@falla:~/sparse$ PATH=.:$PATH ./cgcc -c flow.c
(sid_k-a-dchroot)ukleinek@falla:~/sparse$
with the patch applied vs
(sid_k-a-dchroot)ukleinek@falla:~/sparse$ PATH=.:$PATH ./cgcc -c flow.c
./cgcc: invalid specs: gnu/kfreebsd
(sid_k-a-dchroot)ukleinek@falla:~/sparse$
in the current state.
Best regards
Uwe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
