Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 04:20:06 +0900 From: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, standards@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Cc: nectar@freebsd.org, des@des.no Subject: Re: [CFR] correct type of addrinfo.ai_addrlen and netent.n_net Message-ID: <yge3bs0a7mh.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> In-Reply-To: <ygeacmatffw.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> References: <ygezmub1t1c.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <20050531.075329.118637972.imp@bsdimp.com> <ygevf4zihhz.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <20050531.084832.20036038.imp@bsdimp.com> <ygeu0kjigeg.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <86fyw32yqm.fsf@xps.des.no> <ygesm03ie9a.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <86k6lfbafu.fsf@xps.des.no> <ygepsv7i8d1.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <ygeacmatffw.wl%ume@mahoroba.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
>>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 21:44:03 +0900
>>> Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@mahoroba.org> said:
ume> I've attached the patch to correct 1st argument of getnetbyaddr(3) in
ume> this mail. It is subset of my previous patch. Since it breaks ABI
ume> compatibility of getnetbyaddr(3), I think it is better to correct
ume> n_net member of struct netent, too. Since there is objection, the
ume> patch leaves struct addrinfo as is. So, it doesn't need to bump any
ume> shlib major. Is it okay?
Ultimately, I wish to correct struct addrinfo, too. Since correcting
getnetbyaddr(3) breaks ABI compatibility after all, it seems storange
to me to leave struct addrinfo alone as is. It is better to take this
occasion to correct struct addrinfo as well.
This breakage is only on 64 bit arch. The influence will grow as 64
bit arch spreads. So, I believe it should be done as soon as
possible.
Sincerely,
--
Hajimu UMEMOTO @ Internet Mutual Aid Society Yokohama, Japan
ume@mahoroba.org ume@{,jp.}FreeBSD.org
http://www.imasy.org/~ume/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?yge3bs0a7mh.wl%ume>