Re: problems with configure

Peter Eisentraut writes:> pete.forman@westgeo.com writes:> > > Depending on the version of Solaris and the compiler
flagsthe> > third argument can be a pointer to socklen_t, void, size_t or> > int.> > The argument is question cannot
possiblybe of a different width> than int, unless someone is *really* on drugs at Sun.  Therefore,> if the third
argumentto accept() is "void *" then we just take> "int".  Evidently there will not be a compiler problem if you pass>
an"int *" where a "void *" is expected.  The fact that int may be> signed differently than the actual argument should
notbe a> problem, since evidently the true argument type varies with> compiler options, but surely the BSD socket layer
doesnot.
 

Unless there is more than one library that implements accept, or if
accept is mapped as a macro to another function.

Whatever, I'd be happier if "void *" were mapped to "unsigned int*" as
that is what the Solaris 7 library is expecting.  But it's no big deal
if you want to go with signed.
-- 
Pete Forman                 -./\.- Disclaimer: This post is originated
Western Geophysical           -./\.-  by myself and does not represent
pete.forman@westgeo.com         -./\.-  the opinion of Baker Hughes or
http://www.crosswinds.net/~petef  -./\.-  its divisions.
***==  My old email address gsez020@kryten.bedford.waii.com will ==***
***==  not be operational from Fri 10 to Tue 14 Nov 2000.        ==***