On 2007-03-13 21:20, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
...
Did anyone ask for feedback from POSIX people? I think getaddrinfo()
originally comes from there, right?
The first IETF draft that mentions it is
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ipngwg-bsd-api-05.txt
which refers to
[4] IEEE, Protocol
Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:23:23 +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought I also pointed out
the available space might not be that large since it's an 'int' field
(which may be 16-bit long).
Wow... is there any implementation with a 16-bits
At Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:14:53 +0100,
Julien Laganier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This new version still breaks ABI compatibility,
meaning any implementors would have to rebuild any
software using getaddrinfo against a new library.
[...]
Sorry, overlooked that part below:
To avoid
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:23:23 +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought I also pointed out
the available space might not be that large since it's an 'int' field
(which may be 16-bit long).
Wow... is there any implementation with a 16-bits ai_flags ?
(The abuse aspect of
Folks,
An updated version of the IPv6 address selection API
draft has been published (see below). Over the years,
this draft has been reviewed by many participants to
the IPv6 WG, and has been supported by many of them.
Their feedback has been incorporated in successive
revision of the
Le lundi 12 mars 2007 11:31, Julien Laganier a écrit :
An updated version of the IPv6 address selection API
draft has been published (see below). Over the years,
this draft has been reviewed by many participants to
the IPv6 WG, and has been supported by many of them.
Their feedback has been
Rémi,
First, please note that ABI does change with time,
that's why we have APIs :)
Further, the new API does change the ABI, but it does
not break backward ABI compatibility:
- compile an old version of the library on an old
system without the new API so that is conforms to the
old ABI.
Le lundi 12 mars 2007 18:50, Julien Laganier a écrit :
Now what your example essentially does is:
- compile an old library on an old system without the
new API so that is conforms to the old ABI.
- compile a piece of code on a new system with the new
API so that it conforms to the new ABI.
Overlooked that part of On Monday 12 March 2007 17:08,
Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
This new version still breaks ABI compatibility,
meaning any implementors would have to rebuild any
software using getaddrinfo against a new library.
[...]
Sorry, overlooked that part below:
To avoid this,
Rémi,
On Monday 12 March 2007 18:07, Rémi Denis-Courmont
wrote:
Le lundi 12 mars 2007 18:50, Julien Laganier a
écrit :
Now what your example essentially does is:
- compile an old library on an old system without
the new API so that is conforms to the old ABI.
- compile a piece of
Julien Laganier writes:
What breaks is linking software compiled on the new
system to library compiled on the old system.
That should still work.
What breaks is a library that does something strange with the
structure. The only issue, I think, is whether that strangeness is
something
James,
On Monday 12 March 2007 19:08, James Carlson wrote:
Julien Laganier writes:
It's not the problem of the OS or its ABI
compatibility if you insist on linking software
compiled on the new OS with outdated libraries
supporting the old OS.
It doesn't matter much whose fault it is;
Julien Laganier writes:
It's not the problem of the OS or its ABI compatibility
if you insist on linking software compiled on the new
OS with outdated libraries supporting the old OS.
Actually, in thinking about it a bit more, I think the real problem is
with a strange usage case -- copying
Le lundi 12 mars 2007 20:28, James Carlson a écrit :
Julien Laganier writes:
It's not the problem of the OS or its ABI compatibility
if you insist on linking software compiled on the new
OS with outdated libraries supporting the old OS.
Actually, in thinking about it a bit more, I think
Rémi Denis-Courmont writes:
All of this four fields are integer and hence valid candidates for
memory coypying,
Isn't setting ai_flags to a value provided to you by someone else, but
that contains bits you don't understand, essentially equivalent to
setting arbitrary undefined bits?
I think
15 matches
Mail list logo
