On Sun, May 03, 2009 at 03:17:18PM -0400, Taylor R Campbell
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't think it would be. The field sizes and alignment requirements
> are up to the kernel, not to the C compiler, and exposed through the
> CMSG_SPACE and CMSG_LEN constructs.
but those macros are much newer than the actual file descriptor passing,
and the header files should be responsible for proper alignment, so how
did programs do fd passing before this newfangled macros? (this is the
question I ask myself).
Any additional alignment is also not mentioned in sus, and I can't come up
with an architecture that needs runtime alignment for this.
> Only the CMSG_SPACE and CMSG_LEN macros are RFC 2252 extensions.
But those are the only ones causing issues here, right?
> The rest of the cmsghdr interface is in the SUSv3, whereas the old
exactly, and susv3 doesn't require any special alignment.
it's clear to me that a byte array might not be have corretc alignment for
the cmsghdr structure, but it should be the responsibility of the header
files to guarentee proper alignment for the data structures they define.
> Unfortunately, I can't test any other changes at the moment. (As you
> may observe from the dates on the patch, I procured it several months
> ago and promptly forgot to submit it; now the hardware on which I
> tested it is unavailable.)
Ok, thanks so far, I will probbaly have to go with your patch then, anyways.
Thanks a lot for looking into this!
--
The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
-----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net
----==-- _ generation
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [email protected]
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\
_______________________________________________
rxvt-unicode mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rxvt-unicode
