On 27 Nov 2003, Harold L Hunt II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >It's needed to make IPv6 support work, since sockaddr_in6 is typically > >bigger than sockaddr. > > Okay, that is reasonable. > > >The intent of the change was that sockaddr_storage would only be used > >if you give --enable-rfc2553. RFC2553 requires sockaddr_storage. Is > >there a problem in how this is done? > > Hmm..., well, I don't see how that could be since there are no > preprocessor protections around the sockaddr_storage structures in > dparent.c and prefork.c. I didn't pass --enable-rfc2553 to configure > and I ran into build problems. So, I guess that there must be a problem > in the way that this got implemented.
It's meant to be #defined in distcc.h. I've just changed the replacement type to dcc_sockaddr_storage to make it more clear. What was HAVE_SOCKADDR_STORAGE showing on Cygwin? -- Martin linux.conf.au -- Adelaide, January 2004 __ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc