Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 18:11:54 +0100 From: njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk (Niall Smart) To: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com>, njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG, julian@whistle.com, nate@almond.elite.net Subject: Re: Apparent bug in sendto() with raw sockets Message-ID: <E0ypc2V-0006Wh-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, 9:58am)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 26, 9:58am, Bill Fenner wrote: } Subject: Re: Apparent bug in sendto() with raw sockets > >I'm not so sure [compatability is] so important in this case. > > As I said before, I'm worried about externally-written programs, > particularly about externally-written programs that are not distributed > with source (like pathchar). > > I'd also like to see a definitive way to tell which order the kernel is > expecting, so that externally-written programs that want to be portable > (like, for example, mrouted, mrinfo, mtrace, rsvpd, etc.) don't have to > use __FreeBSD_version. Well, then they would need to go #ifdef __FreeBSD to see if that interface was available =) The convention of using network byte order is sufficient imho 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?E0ypc2V-0006Wh-00>