Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 07:49:11PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > I have applied a patch to CVS to fix the problem. It is all your patch,
> > except for the part you got from me, which was wrong. :-(
> >
> > It took me a while to realize the subtlety of your patch. First, it
> > removes the use of sa_family_t _except_ for cases that don't have
> > SOCKADDR_STORAGE, where it is required. Second, it allows for a
> > structure member named ss_family or __ss_family, tested via configure.
> >
> > This should fix most platforms. I am not sure how cygwin is going to
> > handle this --- we might have to add a specific sa_family_t typedef for
> > that platform --- MinGW does have sa_family_t, but probably doesn't need
> > it anyway. Testing for the size of sa_family_t is possible via
> > configure, but if only cygwin needs it, we can just hard-code that
> > platform in the template files. Cygwin folks, would you test CVS and
> > let me know.
>
> There are probably other systems that don't have sa_family_t yet,
> but they should be rather old. Even my Solaris 2.6 already seems
> to have it.
>
> What I was confused about is, is that cygwin seems to have a
> struct sockaddr_storage in the first place (in winsock2.h). I'm
> not sure what problem he really had since he only told it how he
> solved it.
>
> All that probably needed to change for cygwin was to no longer
> use sa_family_t in the getaddrinfo.c.
But Jason reported he needed that typedef for sa_family_t. Jason, is
that accurate. If you remove the Cygwin typedef in pqcomm.h, does the
compile fail?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073