Re: problems with configure

Peter Eisentraut writes:
> pete(dot)forman(at)westgeo(dot)com writes:
>
> > Depending on the version of Solaris and the compiler flags the
> > third argument can be a pointer to socklen_t, void, size_t or
> > int.
>
> The argument is question cannot possibly be of a different width
> than int, unless someone is *really* on drugs at Sun. Therefore,
> if the third argument to accept() is "void *" then we just take
> "int". Evidently there will not be a compiler problem if you pass
> an "int *" where a "void *" is expected. The fact that int may be
> signed differently than the actual argument should not be a
> problem, since evidently the true argument type varies with
> compiler options, but surely the BSD socket layer does not.

Unless there is more than one library that implements accept, or if
accept is mapped as a macro to another function.

Whatever, I'd be happier if "void *" were mapped to "unsigned int*" as
that is what the Solaris 7 library is expecting. But it's no big deal
if you want to go with signed.
--
Pete Forman -./\.- Disclaimer: This post is originated
Western Geophysical -./\.- by myself and does not represent
pete(dot)forman(at)westgeo(dot)com -./\.- the opinion of Baker Hughes or
http://www.crosswinds.net/~petef -./\.- its divisions.
***== My old email address gsez020(at)kryten(dot)bedford(dot)waii(dot)com will ==***
***== not be operational from Fri 10 to Tue 14 Nov 2000. ==***