Marc Aurele La France writes: > On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Egbert Eich wrote: > > > Marc Aurele La France writes: > > > I don't like the peppering of this code with more OS #ifdef's. I think > > > the approach espoused by Itojun, Todd, Matthieu and Andrew is better. > > > So maybe you can tell what the big difference is? > > So maybe not. I've already stated I cannot test IPv6 function. As such, > I'm here more as an overseer, and in that capacity I am of the opinion > that this code need not be unnecessarily OS-#ifdef'ed. Take that as you > see fit. >
OK, I've taken out the 'defined (linux)' stuff as I agree with you that it is ugly. I expect the code would work on all other platforms, although I cannot test it. The reason why I left the 'defined (linux)' in there was that platforms that don't have the broken Linux behavior suffer a minor penalty: server 1 started with: X -nolisten inet6 -nolisten unix -nolock :0 server 2 started with: X -nolisten unix :0 -nolock The second server doesn't catch that the first one is already using port 6000 for ipv4 as bind to the ipv4 port fails silently if bind to the ipv6 port was successful. This may be a rare condition, though. Egbert. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
