|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
On Sunday 01 June 2008, Nico Schottelius wrote: > Mike Frysinger [Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:23:20AM -0400]: > > is there a reason the usage of socklen_t in gpm is inconsistent ? > > "it's all about history..." > > > 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. > > I think that's a good solution (autoconf/assume it is there/exit error > if not). ive committed this then to gpm-1 ... configure checks for the socklen_t type and all gpm code assumes socklen_t is 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]