Re: OSF build fixed

Kurt Roeckx <Q(at)ping(dot)be> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 05:14:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW, where are we getting the "SALEN" macro from, and how are we sure
>> that it tells the truth about whether the platform expects an ss_len
>> field?

> I'm not sure, it was used before.

Before when? A quick grep finds it nowhere in either the 7.2 or 7.3
trees ... which means we have zero field experience with it. My guess
is that someone threw it in and punted on making configure set it up.

In 7.3 and before, we never bother to set sin_len or sun_len as far as
I can see. Is it really necessary to start setting them now?

If we could dispense with the tests in the .c files, we could make a
much more robust definition of sockaddr_storage along the lines of

struct sockaddr_storage {
union {
struct sockaddr sa;
int64 __ss_align; /* ensure alignment */
char __ss_pad[128]; /* ensure size */
} ss_stuff;
};

#define ss_family ss_stuff.sa.sa_family

Actually I'm inclined to do this even if we do need to set the length field;
but we'll need to add an honest configure test to see if it's there or not.

regards, tom lane