search for: readyness

...s for elaborating this and I think this is actually the way to go, for any such project. It's a fair deal between both the upstream project and the new maintainers. It allows us to get a fair chance, on the other hand, it still gives LLVM upstream the possibility to decide about the production readyness of the backend and consequently whether it's worth to keep or not. > It sounds as if there's a fairly active community of m68k enthusiasts (I'm assuming > that, in spite of the title of this thread, we are talking about the 68000, not the 6800), > so I expect that the promotio...

...if( EINTR == errno ) { @@ -85,6 +96,14 @@ exit(status); } + /* + * Sometimes parent stay in sys_fork() during children already kill()ing him! + * Deadlock in parent's code as result :( + * Wait for parent's SIGTERM to indicate it's readyness after sys_fork()ing. + */ + signal( SIGTERM, parent_is_ready ); + pause(); + signal( SIGTERM, SIG_DFL ); chdir("/"); }

On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 1:27 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 11/15/20 9:33 PM, Simon Pilgrim via llvm-dev wrote: > > As well as the actual patch reviews, has there been official approval that the > > M68k experimental backend can be added to trunk? I guess we need a > > "Backend: M68k" bugzilla component -