[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bug in Guile's Posix Networking
From: |
Noah Lavine |
Subject: |
Re: Bug in Guile's Posix Networking |
Date: |
Sun, 13 Feb 2011 08:57:06 -0500 |
>> I suspect you'd do fine if you ditched the test for sockaddr.sin_len and
>> tested either sockaddr_in.sin_len or sockaddr.sa_len. (And I'd expect an OS
>> to be consistent as to whether the _len field exists for each of the various
>> socket address structures.)
Oh, and as for why I did this - the current code already contains a
test for a sockaddr.sin_len field. I don't know why it's there, but I
assumed that it was needed on some platform at some point. I left it
there, but added a check for sockaddr_in.sin_len as well.
Noah
- Re: Bug in Guile's Posix Networking, (continued)
- Re: Bug in Guile's Posix Networking, Noah Lavine, 2011/02/12
- Re: Bug in Guile's Posix Networking, Andy Wingo, 2011/02/12
- Re: Bug in Guile's Posix Networking, Noah Lavine, 2011/02/12
- Re: Bug in Guile's Posix Networking, Andy Wingo, 2011/02/12
- Re: Bug in Guile's Posix Networking, Noah Lavine, 2011/02/12
- Re: Bug in Guile's Posix Networking, Noah Lavine, 2011/02/12
- Re: Bug in Guile's Posix Networking, Noah Lavine, 2011/02/12
- Re: Bug in Guile's Posix Networking, Noah Lavine, 2011/02/12
- Re: Bug in Guile's Posix Networking, Ken Raeburn, 2011/02/13
- Re: Bug in Guile's Posix Networking, Noah Lavine, 2011/02/13
- Re: Bug in Guile's Posix Networking,
Noah Lavine <=
- Re: Bug in Guile's Posix Networking, Ken Raeburn, 2011/02/13
- Re: Bug in Guile's Posix Networking, Andy Wingo, 2011/02/13
- Re: Bug in Guile's Posix Networking, Noah Lavine, 2011/02/13
- Re: Bug in Guile's Posix Networking, Noah Lavine, 2011/02/13
- Re: Bug in Guile's Posix Networking, Andy Wingo, 2011/02/13
- Re: Bug in Guile's Posix Networking, Andy Wingo, 2011/02/13
Re: Bug in Guile's Posix Networking, Andy Wingo, 2011/02/12