On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans writes:
> >On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Jeffrey Hsu wrote:
> >
> >> > The side effect of having some source-files using the _IP_VHL hack and
> >> > some not is that sizeof(struct ip) varies from file to file,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans writes:
>On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Jeffrey Hsu wrote:
>
>> > The side effect of having some source-files using the _IP_VHL hack and
>> > some not is that sizeof(struct ip) varies from file to file, which at
>> > best is confusing an at worst the source
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Jeffrey Hsu wrote:
> > The side effect of having some source-files using the _IP_VHL hack and
> > some not is that sizeof(struct ip) varies from file to file, which at
> > best is confusing an at worst the source of some really evil bugs.
There is no such effect, or ip
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Garrett Wollman
writes:
>Much better to delete the bogus BYTE_ORDER kluge from ip.h. (Note
>that the definition of the bitfields in question has nothing
>whatsoever to do with the actual byte order in use; it simply relies
>on the historical behavior of compilers
> The side effect of having some source-files using the _IP_VHL hack and
> some not is that sizeof(struct ip) varies from file to file, which at
> best is confusing an at worst the source of some really evil bugs.
> I would therefore propose to eliminate the _IP_VHL hack from the kernel
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> almost 7 years ago, this commit introduced the _IP_VHL hack in our
> IP-stack:
>
> ] revision 1.7
> ] date: 1995/12/21 21:20:27; author: wollman; state: Exp; lines: +5 -1
> ] If _IP_VHL is defined, declare a single ip_vhl member in struct ip rath
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 12:17:13AM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
...
> I would therefore propose to eliminate the _IP_VHL hack from the kernel
yes, go for it.
cheers
luigi
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
