From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | "Martin A(dot) Marques" <martin(at)math(dot)unl(dot)edu(dot)ar>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: problems with configure |
Date: | 2000-11-08 22:34:21 |
Message-ID: | 20976.973722861@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> Not sure what to do about this. It will clearly not do to define
>> ACCEPT_TYPE_ARG3 as void. Perhaps we need a special case for
>> Solaris 7: if we detect that accept() is declared with "void *",
>> assume that socklen_t is the thing to use. Peter, any thoughts?
> Perhaps we could, in case "void *" is discovered, run a similar deal with
> bind() or setsockopt(), i.e., some socket function that takes a
> non-pointer socklen_t (or whatever), in order to find out the true nature
> of what's behind the "void *".
Well, maybe. But is it worth the trouble? Hard to believe anyone else
did the same thing.
If socklen_t exists, it's presumably the right thing to use, so if we
just hardwire "void -> socklen_t", I think it'd be OK. If we're wrong,
we'll hear about it...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Luis Magaa | 2000-11-08 23:47:44 | Text concat problem |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-11-08 22:23:01 | Re: Proposal for DROP TABLE rollback mechanism |