Re: Portability patches vs 1.7.0.2 [5/6]

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Mar 9, 2010, 23:26 UTC
Message-ID: <20100309232624.GE25265@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20100309161906.GF99172@thor.il.thewrittenword.com>

On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 04:19:06PM +0000, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:

> ## sockaddr_t->ss_family is not portable

I assume you mean sockaddr_storage here?

> Many of our supported platforms do not have this declaration, for
> example solaris2.6 thru 2.8 (I can find a complete list of which of
> our supported platforms have this problem).

Did you mean that list to be inclusive? My Solaris 2.8 definitely has sockaddr_storage, as it is necessary for IPv6 handling. I don't remember when IPv6 support was added, though...if it was in a minor release, then presumably earlier versions of 2.8 did not.

At any rate, we should only need it for IPv6 support, so I think the right solution would be to include all uses inside an "#ifndef NO_IPV6", and for the NO_IPV6 case assume it's a sockaddr_in.

-Peff