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

Reply via email to