Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CMake for Stack Overflow Detection #2726

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

ABresting
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@ABresting ABresting changed the title Updating forked copy. CMake for Stack Overflow Detection Jun 30, 2017
# Copyright (c) 2014 Thomas Heller
# Copyright (c) 2007-2012 Hartmut Kaiser
# Copyright (c) 2010-2011 Matt Anderson
# Copyright (c) 2011 Bryce Lelbach
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I doubt that all the people here contributed to this file...

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does your suggestion count?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nah, copyright belongs to the people writing the code.

@hkaiser hkaiser added this to the 1.1.0 milestone Jun 30, 2017
CMakeLists.txt Outdated
endif()
hpx_libraries(${LIBSIGSEGV_LIBRARIES})
include_directories(${LIBSIGSEGV_INCLUDE_DIR})
hpx_add_config_define(HPX_HAVE_LIBSIGSEGV)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please use the 'same' symbol as you used for the configuration. Normally, for a configuration variable HPX_WITH_FOO we use the preprocessor constant HPX_HAVE_FOO. In this case this would be HPX_HAVE_STACKOVERFLOW_DETECTION.

@ABresting ABresting force-pushed the master branch 2 times, most recently from 2dbf2f9 to 00a2072 Compare June 30, 2017 12:04
@ABresting ABresting closed this Jun 30, 2017
@hkaiser
Copy link
Member

hkaiser commented Jun 30, 2017

@ABresting: why did you close this and reopen in a separate PR? You can just keep (force-) pushing to the branch and it will update the corresponding PR.

@ABresting
Copy link
Contributor Author

ABresting commented Jun 30, 2017

accidentally rebased one of the older commits, did't want to make any conflict. Saw those commits were lost so made a clean PR.

@ABresting
Copy link
Contributor Author

@hkaiser to test the libsigsegv wrapper, should I write a test?

@hkaiser
Copy link
Member

hkaiser commented Jun 30, 2017

accidentally rebased one of the older commits, did't want to make any conflict. Saw those commits were lost so made a clean PR.

You could have force-pushed to the original branch. That would have fixed it as well.

@hkaiser
Copy link
Member

hkaiser commented Jun 30, 2017

to test the libsigsegv wrapper, should I write a test?

Absolutely! Please do!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants