Re: 2.2.0-final

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Matthias Urlichs: "Re: [RFC] What should we do with FAT inode numbers?"
• Previous message: Rajib Chakma: "RE:RE: [OFFTOPIC] Re: Linux Kernel constraints!"

>> pid_t
>> __vfork __P ((void))
>Get glibc 2.0.111 -- C is not ameanable to implementing vfork.

Both problems are effectively solved by upgrading Glibc to 2.0.111.
Kernel 2.2.0-pre9 is thus innocent. Sorry!

Thomas.

-- 
    Thomas.Quinot@Cuivre.FR.EU.ORG   <URL:http://web.fdn.fr/~tquinot/>


-
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/

• Next message: Matthias Urlichs: "Re: [RFC] What should we do with FAT inode numbers?"
• Previous message: Rajib Chakma: "RE:RE: [OFFTOPIC] Re: Linux Kernel constraints!"