On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 09:05:25AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote: > Keep reading and then it is the following table:
*sigh* And then: For some implementations, the value of si_addr may be inaccurate. Can we just bail and use that as an excuse? The value on amd64 seems to be completely unrelated to both addresses. Anyway, fixing sparc64... Martin
