Thread

1. Re: [HACKERS] AW: compilation problem on AIX

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 1998-10-13T14:38:58Z

   Andreas Zeugswetter <andreas.zeugswetter@telecom.at> writes:
   > I would simply do:
   
   > #ifndef size_t
   > typedef int size_t 
   > #endif
   
   > #ifndef socklen_t
   > typedef size_t socklen_t
   > #endif
   
   That has no hope of working, since typedefs generally are not macros.
   
   Marc had the right idea: a configure test is the only real way to
   discover how getsockname() is declared.  A small problem is that
   configure can only detect outright compilation failures, not warnings.
   That's probably good enough, but people with nonstandard definitions
   of getsockname may have to live with looking at warnings.
   
   > and use socklen_t which is now standard for socket functions
   
   It is?  The machines I have access to think the parameter is plain,
   unvarnished "int".
   
   			regards, tom lane
   
   

2. RE: [HACKERS] AW: compilation problem on AIX

   Taral <taral@mail.utexas.edu> — 1998-10-13T17:36:31Z

   > Marc had the right idea: a configure test is the only real way to
   > discover how getsockname() is declared.  A small problem is that
   > configure can only detect outright compilation failures, not warnings.
   > That's probably good enough, but people with nonstandard definitions
   > of getsockname may have to live with looking at warnings.
   
   Just redeclare the function with the parameters you expect. Most compilers
   will fail if you redeclare with parameters of different types or different
   number of parameters, but silently ignore functionally identical prototype
   lines.
   
   Taral