RE: [HACKERS] Bug in postgresql-6.3.2

From: "Stupor Genius" <stuporg(at)erols(dot)com>
To: "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Bug in postgresql-6.3.2
Date: 1998-05-22 05:27:41
Message-ID: 000001bd8542$57126140$d197accf@darren
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> The line you are complaining about is:
>
> if ((port->sock = accept(server_fd,
> (struct sockaddr *) & port->raddr,
> &addrlen)) < 0)
>
> while BSDI has accept defined as:
>
> int accept(int s, struct sockaddr *addr, int *addrlen);
>
> So AIX has the last parameter defined as size_t, huh? I looked at the
> accept manual page, and addrlen is the length of the addr field. Hard
> to imagine that is ever going to be larger than an int. Does any other
> OS have that third parameter as anything but an int*?
>
> We may need to add some aix-specific check on a configure check for
> this.

>From aix 4.1 to 4.2, it changed from an int* to an unsigned long*, which
is probably what size_t is defined as.

Wasn't just accept() though. There were other socket functions, but I
don't recall the names offhand. Not around aix anymore either... :)

Check thru the questions digests. I helped a couple of people compile
past this glitch, latest being Jim Kraii I believe.

darrenk

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Gould 1998-05-22 07:00:02 Re: [HACKERS] Revised proposal for libpq and FE/BE protocol changes
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1998-05-22 04:36:32 Re: [HACKERS] Time to fix libpgtcl for async NOTIFY