In message:
Marius Nünnerich writes:
: On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 18:34, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > Greetings,
: >
: > I've found a few inconsistencies in the sockaddr stuff in the tree.
: > I'm not sure where to go to get a definitive answer, so I thought I'd
: > start here.
: >
: > I go
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 18:34, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I've found a few inconsistencies in the sockaddr stuff in the tree.
> I'm not sure where to go to get a definitive answer, so I thought I'd
> start here.
>
> I got here looking at the recent wake breakage on mips. It turns out
>
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 10:34:11AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I've found a few inconsistencies in the sockaddr stuff in the tree.
> I'm not sure where to go to get a definitive answer, so I thought I'd
> start here.
>
> I got here looking at the recent wake breakage on mips. I
>
> Sure enough, that fixes this warning. Yea. But, sadly, it causes
> other problems. If you look at sbin/atm/atmconfig/natm.c you'll see
> code like:
>
> static void
> store_route(struct rt_msghdr *rtm)
> {
> ...
> char *cp
> struct sockaddr *sa;
> ...
>
> cp = (char
Greetings,
I've found a few inconsistencies in the sockaddr stuff in the tree.
I'm not sure where to go to get a definitive answer, so I thought I'd
start here.
I got here looking at the recent wake breakage on mips. It turns out
that the warning was:
src/usr.sbin/wake/wake.c: In function 'find
