Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 07:49:11PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > I have applied a patch to CVS to fix the problem. It is all your patch, > > except for the part you got from me, which was wrong. :-( > > > > It took me a while to realize the subtlety of your patch. First, it > > removes the use of sa_family_t _except_ for cases that don't have > > SOCKADDR_STORAGE, where it is required. Second, it allows for a > > structure member named ss_family or __ss_family, tested via configure. > > > > This should fix most platforms. I am not sure how cygwin is going to > > handle this --- we might have to add a specific sa_family_t typedef for > > that platform --- MinGW does have sa_family_t, but probably doesn't need > > it anyway. Testing for the size of sa_family_t is possible via > > configure, but if only cygwin needs it, we can just hard-code that > > platform in the template files. Cygwin folks, would you test CVS and > > let me know. > > There are probably other systems that don't have sa_family_t yet, > but they should be rather old. Even my Solaris 2.6 already seems > to have it. > > What I was confused about is, is that cygwin seems to have a > struct sockaddr_storage in the first place (in winsock2.h). I'm > not sure what problem he really had since he only told it how he > solved it. > > All that probably needed to change for cygwin was to no longer > use sa_family_t in the getaddrinfo.c.
But Jason reported he needed that typedef for sa_family_t. Jason, is that accurate. If you remove the Cygwin typedef in pqcomm.h, does the compile fail? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
