On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
>
> --On Sunday, September 07, 2003 12:52:18 -0700 Stephan Szabo
> <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --On Sunday, September 07, 2003 20:22:30 +0200 ohp@pyrenet.fr wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> > /usr/local/bin/gmake -C libpq all
> >> > gmake[3]: Entering directory `/home/postgres/pgsql/src/backend/libpq'
> >> > cc -O -Kinline,no_host -I../../../src/include -I/usr/local/include -c
> >> > -o ip.o ip.c UX:acomp: ERROR: "ip.c", line 416: Syntax error before or
> >> > at: . UX:acomp: WARNING: "ip.c", line 419: left operand of "." must be
> >> > struct/union object UX:acomp: WARNING: "ip.c", line 427: left operand
> >> > of "." must be struct/union object UX:acomp: WARNING: "ip.c", line
> >> > 428: left operand of "." must be struct/union object UX:acomp:
> >> > WARNING: "ip.c", line 429: left operand of "." must be struct/union
> >> > object UX:acomp: WARNING: "ip.c", line 430: left operand of "." must
> >> > be struct/union object UX:acomp: ERROR: "ip.c", line 451: Syntax error
> >> > before or at: . UX:acomp: ERROR: "ip.c", line 452: invalid type
> >> > combination
> >> > UX:acomp: WARNING: "ip.c", line 455: left operand of "." must be
> >> > struct/union object UX:acomp: WARNING: "ip.c", line 464: left operand
> >> > of "." must be struct/union object UX:acomp: WARNING: "ip.c", line
> >> > 465: left operand of "." must be struct/union object UX:acomp:
> >> > WARNING: "ip.c", line 466: left operand of "." must be struct/union
> >> > object UX:acomp:
> >> line 416 is:
> >>
> >> int32 s_addr;
> >>
> >> s_addr is seen by the compiler as:
> >>
> >> uint32 __S_un . __S_addr ;
> >>
> >>
> >> We need to pick another name.
> >
> > As a side note, if s_addr is being defined by a common system header, you
> > should probably complain to your vendor as well, since that's amazingly
> > bad behavior on its part.
>
> netinet/in_f.h:#define s_addr __S_un.__S_addr
>
> Hrm. I'll ask, but this is SCO, so.........
>
> Meanwhile, this header is in the field, so.........
Yeah, we obviously need to deal with it now, but hopefully at some
point in the future other people won't.