[gpm] socklen_t handling
Mon Jun 2 18:13:07 CEST 2008
On Sunday 01 June 2008, Nico Schottelius wrote:
> Mike Frysinger [Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:23:20AM -0400]:
> > is there a reason the usage of socklen_t in gpm is inconsistent ?
> "it's all about history..."
> > if the code
> > base you're building against doesnt supply socklen_t, it's a great big
> > pile imo (this is after all required by POSIX). if we want to support
> > such crappy systems, we should move the socklen_t check into configure
> > and have the source assume it's available.
> I think that's a good solution (autoconf/assume it is there/exit error
> if not).
ive committed this then to gpm-1 ... configure checks for the socklen_t type
and all gpm code assumes socklen_t is available
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/gpm/attachments/20080602/b9c2c714/attachment.pgp
More information about the gpm