| FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending | | Home |
| Tools: [Download Repo ZIP] [Original HTTPS Page] |
|
LGTM |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit/4810/ |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
LGTM |
Sorry, something went wrong.
It seems that it is possible with some toolchains for both `__GLIBC__` and `__UCLIBC__` to be defined, confusing our "do we have execinfo.h?" logic. Assume that when `__UCLIBC__` is defined, we are dealing with a libc that does not have execinfo.h. Fixes: nodejs#8233 PR-URL: nodejs#8308 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
It seems that it is possible with some toolchains for both `__GLIBC__` and `__UCLIBC__` to be defined, confusing our "do we have execinfo.h?" logic. Assume that when `__UCLIBC__` is defined, we are dealing with a libc that does not have execinfo.h. Fixes: nodejs#8233 PR-URL: nodejs#8308 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
It seems that it is possible with some toolchains for both `__GLIBC__` and `__UCLIBC__` to be defined, confusing our "do we have execinfo.h?" logic. Assume that when `__UCLIBC__` is defined, we are dealing with a libc that does not have execinfo.h. Fixes: #8233 PR-URL: #8308 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
|
Yes. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@bnoordhuis src/backtrace_posix.cc does not exist on v4.x. The source also does not appear to be present. Am I missing something? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Sorry, it depends on #6734 which is tagged but not back-ported yet. I don't know if or when I'll get around to that. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
| Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL |
It seems that it is possible with some toolchains for both __GLIBC__
and __UCLIBC__ to be defined, confusing our "do we have execinfo.h?"
logic.
Assume that when __UCLIBC__ is defined, we are dealing with a libc
that does not have execinfo.h.
Fixes: #8233