Collin Funk <collin.fu...@gmail.com> writes: > Collin Funk <collin.fu...@gmail.com> writes: > >> I've applied this patch using modern gnulib timespec functions instead >> of rolling our own versions (atleast for traceroute). > > Likewise for ping & ping6.
Thanks - I'm neutral on these patches, as I don't really know what a positive or negative test for them would be. However, speaking on inet_ntoa and different code paths reminded me: a good todo work item would be to merge the ping4 and ping6 tools. I don't think there are any reasonable arguments for having different main() etc code paths for these two tools, they ought to be close enough to use the same overall logic and differ when needed depending on IPv4 vs IPv6. Does anyone see any strong argument against that? I think some small (hopefully unintentional) variations between these tools have sneaked in because they aren't synced, and I think it would be nice to make them more consistent. Not sure if you want to work on this, but thought I should mention it. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
