warnings from backtrace

[Gary E. Miller]

Yo Hal!

On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 21:09:05 -0700
Hal Murray <hmurray at megapathdsl.net> wrote:

> > So, back on the original subject of seccomp, did the seccomp
> > changes work for you?  No point testing seccomp on *BSD.   
> 
> What does "work" mean?

As explained in the email: force a seccomp failure, see if the output
looks better to you.  The output should be improved a bit, if you
have seccomp but no execinfo.h  Improved with a backtrace if you
have execinfo.h.

Only worth trying on Linux since seccomp is only on Linux.

It 'works' if you like it better than before.

> I think I'm up to date with git head.  I ran it through my 
> compile-on-lots-of-systems script.  The only complaints I got were
> those warnings.

Fixes just pushed for the one warning I knew about.

RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
	gem at rellim.com  Tel:+1 541 382 8588

	    Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas?
    "If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it." - Lord Kelvin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ntpsec.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20170601/f8efef8e/attachment.bin>