From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on dcvr.yhbt.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-ASN: AS6939 64.71.128.0/18
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
 MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,URIBL_BLOCKED shortcircuit=no autolearn=unavailable
 version=3.3.2
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Jeremy Evans <code@jeremyevans.net>
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.ruby.kgio.general
Subject: Re: Fixes for OpenBSD
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 12:29:16 -0700
Message-ID: <20110505192916.GF9693@jeremyevans.local>
References: <20110505181846.GB9693@jeremyevans.local>
 <20110505181846.GB9693@jeremyevans.local>
 <20110505184525.GA21251@dcvr.yhbt.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1304623782 11941 80.91.229.12 (5 May 2011 19:29:42
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 19:29:42 +0000 (UTC)
To: kgio@librelist.com
Original-X-From: kgio@librelist.com Thu May 05 21:29:35 2011
Return-path: <kgio@librelist.com>
Envelope-to: gclrkg-kgio@m.gmane.org
List-Archive: <http://librelist.com/archives/kgio/>
List-Help: <http://librelist.com/help.html>
List-Id: <kgio-public@bogomips.org>
List-Post: <mailto:kgio@librelist.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:kgio-subscribe@librelist.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:kgio-unsubscribe@librelist.com>
Precedence: list
Original-Sender: kgio@librelist.com
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.ruby.kgio.general:19
Archived-At:
 <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.ruby.kgio.general/19>
Received: from zedshaw.xen.prgmr.com ([64.71.167.205]) by lo.gmane.org with
 esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <kgio@librelist.com>) id 1QI4Ev-0003Qq-BL
 for gclrkg-kgio@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 May 2011 21:29:33 +0200
Received: from zedshaw.xen.prgmr.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by
 zedshaw.xen.prgmr.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DEA021C983 for
 <gclrkg-kgio@m.gmane.org>; Thu,  5 May 2011 19:30:38 +0000 (UTC)

> I'm not sure why OpenBSD differs from POSIX here:
>   http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/getaddrinfo.html
> 
> Even though PF_UNSPEC == AF_UNSPEC in most systems, I'd rather go with
> the following patch and single out OpenBSD (and maybe other *BSDs) since
> "AF_" (address family) makes more sense than "PF_" (protocol family):
 
It looks like the AF_UNSPEC -> PF_UNSPEC is not necessary, they must be
defined to the same thing.  Why the OpenBSD man page recommends
PF_UNSPEC, I'm not sure.  It looks like the memset was the necessary
fix.

Thanks,
Jeremy