Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > the problem can be fixed by simply appliing this patch > to bits/sockaddr.h:
As we aim for binary compatibility with linux, I'm pretty sure we want to use the same definition of struct sockaddr and sa_family_t as on linux. > which indicate a disparity on what the POSIX 1003.1g standard > says. is sa_family_t an unsigned char or an unsigned short int? > > you can fix this bug with the first diff. but someone should > take a look at POSIX.1g to find out which of short int or char > is the correct value. I haven't read the posix documents, but I would be surprised if it specifies the exact size of sa_family_t. Posix doesn't care about binary compatibility, so I'd expect that all that matters for posix compliance is that the type exists and is big enough for storing the constant AF_INET and the other AF_* constants. The entire point of standardizing types like sa_family_t is to allow implementations to use any size they find convenient, and at the same time make it possible to write portable source code. /Niels PS. I'm not all that familiar with the debian bug tracking system. I left the "Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" in, but removed the "Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]". Let me know if I should have done differently.
