Re: [HACKERS] problems with configure

[Tom Lane]

Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Not sure what to do about this.  It will clearly not do to define
>> ACCEPT_TYPE_ARG3 as void.  Perhaps we need a special case for
>> Solaris 7: if we detect that accept() is declared with "void *",
>> assume that socklen_t is the thing to use.  Peter, any thoughts?

> Perhaps we could, in case "void *" is discovered, run a similar deal with
> bind() or setsockopt(), i.e., some socket function that takes a
> non-pointer socklen_t (or whatever), in order to find out the true nature
> of what's behind the "void *".

Well, maybe.  But is it worth the trouble?  Hard to believe anyone else
did the same thing.

If socklen_t exists, it's presumably the right thing to use, so if we
just hardwire "void -> socklen_t", I think it'd be OK.  If we're wrong,
we'll hear about it...

                        regards, tom lane