> To the best of my knowledge, it was long unspecified whether the > terminating '\0' was part of the address or not.
Even 1.4T's unix(4) says "the terminating NUL is not part of the address". It (like the 4.0.1 manpage) even emphasizes the "not". I no longer have anything older easily available to check. When did AF_UNIX get created? 4.3? 4.2? (Very fuzzy wetware memory says it was 4.2, with the renaming to AF_LOCAL happening around 4.4Lite.) Anyone have anything that old around to check what it said? > So while those programs are indeed incorrect with respect to the > definition in our current manual page, they are more or less correct > with respect to historical behavior. Letting programs get away with something in violation of a documentated interface for a long time is hardly grounds for continuing to let them do so. (Except, arguably, for COMPAT_* binaries - but NetBSD has broken compatability in some cases even for those.) /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [email protected] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
