Re: [cp-patches] RFC: checking for socklen_t

[Dalibor Topic]

On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 03:24:38PM +0100, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> Christian Thalinger wrote:
> >On Sun, 2006-01-01 at 23:42 +0100, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> >>Well, he hasn't yet, but I'll add my comment here.
> >>
> >>I'd like to see it as an unsigned int and not an int. Most systems I 
> >>know use unsigned int for socklen_t. Posix.1g also recommends to use 
> >>uint32_t for socklen_t.
> >
> >Well, on this very special OS not even uint32_t is defined.  So i'd vote
> >for `unsigned int' if you think we should use unsigned.
> 
> That's fine with me. uint32_t is more or less 'unsigned int'.
> 

I'll try to wrap up a patch from Kaffe today that uses
AX_CREATE_STDINT.m4 from ac-acrhive from Guido Draheim to declare
those nice C99 types on compilers lacking them. It has served us well in
Kaffe. :)

That should make uint32_t available to any classpath code including the
respective wrapper header.

cheers,
dalibor topic

> Thanks,
> Andreas
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Classpath-patches mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath-patches