Re: CVS commit: xsrc/external/mit/xauth/dist

2013-06-04 Thread Martin Husemann
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 08:00:58PM +, David Holland wrote:
   #define__DECONST(t, a) const_castt(a)
 
 and I suppose one could also do something like this:
 
 #define __DECONST(t, v) \
(sizeof((v) - (const t)0) ? (t)(unsigned long)(v) : 0)

Sounds good to me.

I seriously wonder why an intern __-namespaced macro needs to be portable
beyound all currently supported architextures. Maybe we could add another
clause to the ? selector and check for sizeof(unsigned long) =
sizeof(const t) to make possible future failures very explicit - but that
should IMO be enough.

On the other hand, the idea of making this *evil* macro usable by C++
code makes me shiver. Plaese don't tell me bind11 or newer gcc will
need this!

Martin



Re: CVS commit: src/sys

2013-06-04 Thread Christos Zoulas
On Jun 5,  2:06am, jruoho...@iki.fi (Jukka Ruohonen) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys

| On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 06:47:37PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
|  While here, simplify the code and remove the IPSEC_NAT_T option; always
|  compile nat-traversal in so that it does not bitrot.
| 
| By the way, while I can understand INET6, what is the purpose of INET?
| Funny that even src/sys/netinet/udp_usrreq.c claims to work without it
| (to the usual funny extent of these #ifdefs).

I don't think that anyone has compiled INET6 recently without INET (if ever).

christos


Re: CVS commit: src/sys

2013-06-04 Thread Jukka Ruohonen
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 07:11:02PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
 On Jun 5,  2:06am, jruoho...@iki.fi (Jukka Ruohonen) wrote:
 -- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys
 
 | On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 06:47:37PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
 |  While here, simplify the code and remove the IPSEC_NAT_T option; always
 |  compile nat-traversal in so that it does not bitrot.
 | 
 | By the way, while I can understand INET6, what is the purpose of INET?
 | Funny that even src/sys/netinet/udp_usrreq.c claims to work without it
 | (to the usual funny extent of these #ifdefs).
 
 I don't think that anyone has compiled INET6 recently without INET (if ever).

Ah, maybe IPv6-only hosts would be the rationale then. But as you noted, it
is not difficult to find cases like

#ifdef INET
  ...
#ifdef INET6

- Jukka.