On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Ted Unangst <t...@tedunangst.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 22:54, James Turner wrote:
> > I've come across a piece of software that defines __POSIX_C_SOURCE which
> > causes __BSD_VISIBLE to bet set to 0.
> >
> > In sys/socket.h if __BSD_VISIBLE is 0 sys/_types.h is included instead
> > of sys/types.h. This is fine however in three cases we reference
> > u_int8_t (2) and u_int64_t (1) which requires sys/types.h.
> >
> > If we change these to __uint8_t and __uint64_t they work with either
> > types.h or _types.h. Does this make sense? Will there be any side
> > effects?
>
> I believe the correct type would be uint8_t or uint64_t. Those should be
> visible (I think). A quick look indicates that maybe they aren't, so that
> won't work.
>
> There won't be any side effects from using __uint64_t, but I think of it
> more like a building block for another type. Not to be used directly.
>

Disagree.  Indeed, I just committed James's diff (plus one additional
change to CMSG_DATA()).

(Thanks, James!)

Philip Guenther

Reply via email to