On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 06:17:12PM -0700, Wan-Teh Chang wrote: > Regarding your patch: I think it is fine to > assume that AI_PASSIVE is defined if > getaddrinfo() exists.
Same here, but it seemed more consistent with the existing code to check anyway. > all the getaddrinfo() implementations I know of > conform to either RFC 2133 or RFC 2553 and do > not take the AI_ADDRCONFIG flag. (RFC 2553 has > AI_ADDRCONFIG but it is for getipnodebyname().) Solaris getaddrinfo takes it, at least in the version I'm using. Though now that I've tested it, it doesnt seem to honour it :( Solaris is where Justin is seeing the problem. Gah, back to sqaure one. (well, square 1.1). -- Colm MacC�rthaigh Public Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.stdlib.net/
