At 11:07 AM -0700 9/10/02, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 01:07:30PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> If '-D_XPG4_2 -D__EXTENSIONS__' are added to CPPFLAGS during the configure
>> process, perchild will compile relatively cleanly under Solaris 8 and
>> result in a binary that actually serves content!! Haven't yet
>> playing with using the actual uid/gid aspects of perchild yet.
>>
>> I'm looking to see what affects, if any, adding these by default to
>> APR and httpd will be... If anyone has some better experience with
>> these, please let me know :)
>
>If that combo works, great, but I have a feeling it will break some
>other things. I have a combo somewhere around here that I am using on
>another module that allows solaris to expose the same file descriptor
>passing semantics, let me see if I can find it.
>

I'm also concerned about breakage... Thing is, we're using msghdr for
the recvmsg() calls.

/*
 * Message header for recvmsg and sendmsg calls.
 */
struct msghdr {
        void            *msg_name;              /* optional address */
        socklen_t       msg_namelen;            /* size of address */
        struct iovec    *msg_iov;               /* scatter/gather array */
        int             msg_iovlen;             /* # elements in msg_iov */

#if defined(_XPG4_2) || defined(_KERNEL)
        void            *msg_control;           /* ancillary data */
        socklen_t       msg_controllen;         /* ancillary data buffer len */
        int             msg_flags;              /* flags on received message */
#else
        caddr_t         msg_accrights;  /* access rights sent/received */
        int             msg_accrightslen;
#endif  /* defined(_XPG4_2) || defined(_KERNEL) */
};

The __EXTENSIONS__ is required for proctype_t (in various headers)
to be correctly defined :/

-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
      "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
             will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson

Reply via email to