Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> @@ -78,10 +76,8 @@
>> {
>>switch (af)
>> {
>> -#if HAVE_IPV4
>> case AF_INET:
>>return (inet_ntop4 (src, dst, cnt));
>> -#endif
>>
>> #if HAVE_IPV6
>> case AF_INET6:
>
> This hunk would break portab
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> @@ -78,10 +76,8 @@
> {
>switch (af)
> {
> -#if HAVE_IPV4
> case AF_INET:
>return (inet_ntop4 (src, dst, cnt));
> -#endif
>
> #if HAVE_IPV6
> case AF_INET6:
This hunk would break portability to systems without real networking,
such as Linux 0.
Yoann Vandoorselaere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 20:48 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Hi Yoann! Ok to install this? The reason is that inet_ntop6 calls
>> inet_nto4, so it doesn't make sense to make IPv4 optional. The
>> current code wouldn't work on a platform that HA
On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 20:48 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Hi Yoann! Ok to install this? The reason is that inet_ntop6 calls
> inet_nto4, so it doesn't make sense to make IPv4 optional. The
> current code wouldn't work on a platform that HAVE_IPV6 but not
> HAVE_IPV4, if there are any.
Hi Sim
Hi Yoann! Ok to install this? The reason is that inet_ntop6 calls
inet_nto4, so it doesn't make sense to make IPv4 optional. The
current code wouldn't work on a platform that HAVE_IPV6 but not
HAVE_IPV4, if there are any.
--- inet_ntop.c 16 Jun 2006 17:35:21 +0200 1.3
+++ inet_ntop.c 17 Ju
