On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 22:49:00 +0200, Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 03:32:32PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > I was looking at this some more and now think there is something wrong > > with the references to ss_family rather than a missing inlcude file. > > Perhaps those were supposed to be references to sa_family or there > > is a missing field from the socket_storage type definition. > > The struct sockaddr_storage should only have 1 field you can use > and that is ss_family. The other fields are there just to get > the right size and padding. > > Does your system have it's own (broken?) struct sockaddr_storage > maybe?
I am going to look around a bit and see if I can figure this out. Things worked fine before Bruce changed this stuff. Presumably the changed code is working for the "core" or the change would have been reverted days ago. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
