On 9/24/16 6:05 PM, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Brad House wrote:
>
>> As far as I'm aware it was complete,
>
> Sorry, but this quote from your email on September 1st:
>
> "The exceptions that needed fixing are NS_IN6ADDRSZ, NS_INADDRSZ, and
> CARES_MASK_{SHORT,USHORT,SINT,UINT,SLONG,ULONG} (which basically all systems
> should have limits.h ... if not, there's still a fallback)."
>
> What does that mean? What fixes were you talking about if the patch was complete?
That paragraph in my original email was describing the actual fixes provided by the
patch. None of the other changes changes any logic other than those described by
that paragraph, the bulk of the patch, other than what was mentioned in that paragraph
was just removing dead wood (unused type size detections). Hence the use of the "needed",
in past-tense form, since my patch, in the current tense fixed that :)
I think c-ares in the past must have gone through a cleanup that left *MOST*
of the size-detections unused, as I can't explain why they existed in the first place
at all.
>
> The 'ares_socklen_t' seems to be a particular problem in the current ares_build.h file that sticks out. How does your
> suggested replacement look for that that?
>
Can you elaborate? CARES_SIZEOF_ARES_SOCKLEN_T was completely unused
by any logic what-so-ever, so I simply got rid of it. Is that what you're
asking about?
The CARES_TYPEOF_ARES_SOCKLEN_T is still there and needed, but that won't
vary from arch to arch for the same OS, so there's no reason to try to
rework that in any way.
Let me know if I'm not understanding your question.
-Brad
Received on 2016-09-25