From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ken Raeburn Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Bug in Guile's Posix Networking Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 00:42:35 -0500 Message-ID: <33545F7E-7D6A-406F-8B15-501B050181E1@raeburn.org> References: <877hdb76cq.fsf@vir.lan> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1297575773 12609 80.91.229.12 (13 Feb 2011 05:42:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 05:42:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel To: Noah Lavine Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 13 06:42:46 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PoUjO-00013l-Fl for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 06:42:46 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59056 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PoUjN-0007we-SJ for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 00:42:45 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=41359 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PoUjI-0007vE-FW for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 00:42:41 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PoUjH-0003Wy-DY for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 00:42:40 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-vx0-f169.google.com ([209.85.220.169]:41022) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PoUjH-0003Ws-9p for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 00:42:39 -0500 Original-Received: by vxb41 with SMTP id 41so1997873vxb.0 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 21:42:38 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.220.168.13 with SMTP id s13mr3044908vcy.0.1297575757552; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 21:42:37 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [10.0.0.158] (c-24-128-190-224.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.128.190.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n13sm304363vcr.17.2011.02.12.21.42.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 12 Feb 2011 21:42:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.220.169 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:11589 Archived-At: What platforms have sin_len in the generic sockaddr structure? The one = I've always seen is sa_len, and that's consistent with sa_family in = terms of field name prefixes. sockaddr -> sa_ sockaddr_in -> sin_ sockaddr_in6 -> sin6_ sockaddr_storage -> ss_ I suspect you'd do fine if you ditched the test for sockaddr.sin_len and = tested either sockaddr_in.sin_len or sockaddr.sa_len. (And I'd expect = an OS to be consistent as to whether the _len field exists for each of = the various socket address structures.) At first glance, the IPv6 flavor of the code looks okay on this score... Ken=