Re: problems with configure

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> Not sure what to do about this. It will clearly not do to define
>> ACCEPT_TYPE_ARG3 as void. Perhaps we need a special case for
>> Solaris 7: if we detect that accept() is declared with "void *",
>> assume that socklen_t is the thing to use. Peter, any thoughts?

> Perhaps we could, in case "void *" is discovered, run a similar deal with
> bind() or setsockopt(), i.e., some socket function that takes a
> non-pointer socklen_t (or whatever), in order to find out the true nature
> of what's behind the "void *".

Well, maybe. But is it worth the trouble? Hard to believe anyone else
did the same thing.

If socklen_t exists, it's presumably the right thing to use, so if we
just hardwire "void -> socklen_t", I think it'd be OK. If we're wrong,
we'll hear about it...

regards, tom lane