From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Oct 3 19: 6:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CD6437B401 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 19:06:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from piglet.dstc.edu.au (piglet.dstc.edu.au [130.102.176.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF4B543E4A for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 19:06:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-lists@lister.dnsalias.net) Received: from ilister.dialup.dstc.edu.au (ilister.dialup.dstc.edu.au [130.102.182.103]) by piglet.dstc.edu.au (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g9426H4s022872; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 12:06:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (ilister@localhost) by ilister.dialup.dstc.edu.au (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g9426C411151; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 12:06:15 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from freebsd-lists@lister.dnsalias.net) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 12:06:12 +1000 (EST) From: Ian Lister X-X-Sender: ilister@sapporo.home To: Leo Bicknell Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: inet_aton() Bug or feature? In-Reply-To: <20021004013814.GA70364@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Checked: SPAMASSASSIN: This message probably not SPAM X-Spam-Score: -4.5, Required: 5 X-Virus-Scanned: Message: ok X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.9 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Leo Bicknell wrote: >In a message written on Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 12:55:15PM -0700, Crist J. Clark wrote: >> This is a feature not a bug since it is documented in inet_aton(3), >> >> All numbers supplied as ``parts'' in a `.' notation may be decimal, >> octal, or hexadecimal, as specified in the C language (i.e., a leading 0x >> or 0X implies hexadecimal; otherwise, a leading 0 implies octal; other- >> wise, the number is interpreted as decimal). > >While I agree it's documented, does it agree with practice? > >The earliest reference I could find was RFC 952 >(ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc952.txt): It agrees with the SUS definition of inet_addr(), and inet_aton() should probably be consistent with that: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/functions/inet_addr.html Ian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message