Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:12:56 +0930 From: "O'Connor, Daniel" <darius@dons.net.au> To: Russell Haley <russ.haley@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-arm <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why does this compile? Message-ID: <43AA1F17-397E-489F-967B-FB69C7E3BF5D@dons.net.au> In-Reply-To: <CABx9NuSzSzK87WF07S0B2aZpddKxYJf69kR2gWqBmHxaEQO6JA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CABx9NuSzSzK87WF07S0B2aZpddKxYJf69kR2gWqBmHxaEQO6JA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 26 Sep 2017, at 14:08, Russell Haley <russ.haley@gmail.com> wrote:
> This compiles on FreeBSD current and apparently on 11 too. That's a
> bad thing because it's supposed to fail. I checked in.h and there is
> no struct for in_pktinfo. Not surprisingly, if I remove the include
> altogether, it still compiles.
>
> I assume then that the original author made a mistake? My C is too
> weak and most of my searches don't turn up anything close to what I'm
> looking for.
>
> Any suggestions would be awesome. :)
Change the test to..
check_c_source_compiles(
"
#include <${SOCKET_INCLUDES}>
int main()
{
struct in_pktinfo teststruct;
return 0;
}
"
HAVE_IN_PKTINFO)
i.e. the original test is broken and will always compile (as you discovered).
--
Daniel O'Connor
"The nice thing about standards is that there
are so many of them to choose from."
-- Andrew Tanenbaum
GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43AA1F17-397E-489F-967B-FB69C7E3BF5D>