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=-2.3 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: Eric Wong Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.ruby.kgio.general Subject: Re: Fixes for OpenBSD Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 12:33:36 -0700 Message-ID: <20110505193336.GA28700@dcvr.yhbt.net> References: <20110505181846.GB9693@jeremyevans.local> <20110505181846.GB9693@jeremyevans.local> <20110505184525.GA21251@dcvr.yhbt.net> <20110505192916.GF9693@jeremyevans.local> 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 1304624037 13496 80.91.229.12 (5 May 2011 19:33:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 19:33:57 +0000 (UTC) To: kgio@librelist.com Original-X-From: kgio@librelist.com Thu May 05 21:33:52 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclrkg-kgio@m.gmane.org List-Archive: List-Help: List-Id: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list Original-Sender: kgio@librelist.com Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.ruby.kgio.general:20 Archived-At: Received: from zedshaw.xen.prgmr.com ([64.71.167.205]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QI4J5-0005tn-Pp for gclrkg-kgio@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 May 2011 21:33:52 +0200 Received: from zedshaw.xen.prgmr.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by zedshaw.xen.prgmr.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1420921C987 for ; Thu, 5 May 2011 19:34:59 +0000 (UTC) Jeremy Evans wrote: > > 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. OK, thanks! -- Eric Wong