Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 17:49:38 +0100 From: njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk (Niall Smart) To: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com>, njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk (Niall Smart) Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, Nate Lawson <nate@almond.elite.net>, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Apparent bug in sendto() with raw sockets Message-ID: <E0ypbgw-0006R9-00@oak74.doc.ic.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com> "Re: Apparent bug in sendto() with raw sockets" (Jun 26, 8:58am)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 26, 8:58am, Bill Fenner wrote: } Subject: Re: Apparent bug in sendto() with raw sockets > In message <E0ypYBC-0005Qv-00@oak67.doc.ic.ac.uk>you write: > >I think its more important to be correct in this area, raw sockets > >programming can be tricky enough without what will seem to the > >user like gratuitous changes. > > Changing the interface from what it currently is is a gratuitous change. No it isn't, its a bug fix, you yourself noted the problem only happened because the code was originally developed on a Sun box. Having one or two of the fields in host byte order while the rest are in network byte order is silly and the only reason to keep it this way is bug compatability, but I'm not so sure thats so important in this case. Niall To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E0ypbgw-0006R9-00>