|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
is there a reason the usage of socklen_t in gpm is inconsistent ? if the code base you're building against doesnt supply socklen_t, it's a great big pile imo (this is after all required by POSIX). if we want to support such crappy systems, we should move the socklen_t check into configure and have the source assume it's available. -mike
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ gpm mailing list gpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linux.it/listinfo/gpm
[Kernel Development] [Red Hat Install] [Red Hat Watch] [Red Hat Development] [Gimp] [Yosemite News]