Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:49:11 +0900 From: Yoshinobu Inoue <shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp> To: bde@zeta.org.au Cc: nnd@mail.nsk.ru, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 'machine/param.h' required for 'sys/socket.h' Message-ID: <20000322024911Q.shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003220428230.4710-100000@alphplex.bde.org> References: <20000322013459L.shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003220428230.4710-100000@alphplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I feel requesting inclusion of machine/param.h for any apps > > which use socket is better. But if there are any other smarter > > solution, please let me know and I'll appreciate it much. > > <machine/param.h> should never be included by applications since > it is an implementation detail. > > Specify including <sys/param.h> in apps which use the CMSG*() macros. > <sys/socket.h> doesn't depend on <*/param.h> unless these macros are used. > Since these macros are undocumented, applications that use them should > expect problems :-). > > Bruce After reading bmah's message, now I am inclined to including machine/param.h from sys/socket.h for maximum portability, if there is no spec for it, and if all other platforms doing it. Of course, I think enough testing for it is necessary. I can test make world for it. And if it is OK, then I think it should be once just committed and checked if any other ports build problem happens for it, or any other person claim another problem. Any more comments for this approach? Yoshinobu Inoue To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000322024911Q.shin>