Re: CVS commit: src/sys
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 07:11:02PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote: > On Jun 5, 2:06am, jruoho...@iki.fi (Jukka Ruohonen) wrote: > -- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys > > | On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 06:47:37PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote: > | > While here, simplify the code and remove the IPSEC_NAT_T option; always > | > compile nat-traversal in so that it does not bitrot. > | > | By the way, while I can understand INET6, what is the purpose of INET? > | Funny that even src/sys/netinet/udp_usrreq.c claims to work without it > | (to the usual funny extent of these #ifdefs). > > I don't think that anyone has compiled INET6 recently without INET (if ever). Ah, maybe IPv6-only hosts would be the rationale then. But as you noted, it is not difficult to find cases like #ifdef INET ... #ifdef INET6 - Jukka.
Re: CVS commit: src/sys
On Jun 5, 2:06am, jruoho...@iki.fi (Jukka Ruohonen) wrote: -- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys | On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 06:47:37PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote: | > While here, simplify the code and remove the IPSEC_NAT_T option; always | > compile nat-traversal in so that it does not bitrot. | | By the way, while I can understand INET6, what is the purpose of INET? | Funny that even src/sys/netinet/udp_usrreq.c claims to work without it | (to the usual funny extent of these #ifdefs). I don't think that anyone has compiled INET6 recently without INET (if ever). christos
Re: CVS commit: xsrc/external/mit/xauth/dist
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 08:00:58PM +, David Holland wrote: > > #define__DECONST(t, a) const_cast(a) > > and I suppose one could also do something like this: > > #define __DECONST(t, v) \ >(sizeof((v) - (const t)0) ? (t)(unsigned long)(v) : 0) Sounds good to me. I seriously wonder why an intern __-namespaced macro needs to be portable beyound all currently supported architextures. Maybe we could add another clause to the ? selector and check for sizeof(unsigned long) >= sizeof(const t) to make possible future failures very explicit - but that should IMO be enough. On the other hand, the idea of making this *evil* macro usable by C++ code makes me shiver. Plaese don't tell me bind11 or newer gcc will need this! Martin