Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> I thought the report was that *only* 255.255.255.255 failed. The
> question is why?
The impression I got was that some internal subroutine of getaddrinfo
had a broken error-handling convention (ie, "return a numeric address
value or -1 on error").
> And would changing the hints passed to getaddrinfo_all
> improve matters (e.g. by filling in the ai_family with the value from
> the addr structure we already have)?
Seems unlikely. I suppose you could argue that we shouldn't be using
getaddrinfo on the netmask field at all; there's certainly not any value
in doing a DNS lookup on it, for instance. Maybe we should go back to
using plain ol' inet_aton for it? (Nah, won't handle IPv6...)
regards, tom lane