Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 94828 invoked by uid 500); 24 Apr 2002 18:47:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 94817 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2002 18:47:18 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: rdu88-250-035.nc.rr.com: trawick set sender to trawick@attglobal.net using -f Sender: trawick@rdu88-250-035.nc.rr.com To: Jon Travis Cc: dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Re: Solaris binary compatability bug References: <20020424112223.A17394@covalent.net> From: Jeff Trawick Date: 24 Apr 2002 14:43:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20020424112223.A17394@covalent.net> Message-ID: Lines: 24 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Jon Travis writes: > I'm having a small problem with binary compatability between Solaris 2.6 > and a particular Solaris 8 box that I have. If I build a simple program > on a 2.6 box and call: > > apr_sockaddr_info_get(..., "255.255.255.255", ...) > > It works fine on the 2.6 box, but fails on the 8.x box. There is a > check in the configure stage which defines GETHOSTBYNAME_HANDLES_NAS -- > this succeeds on 2.6, and fails on 8.x (obviously not binary compatable.) FYI... works on my Solaris 8 box... > There is a way in which we can fix this: Why don't we _always_ run the > segment of code in sa_common.c (~ line 420) where we do a strspn to see > if we are dealing with dotted-quad notation? fair enough (+0.9)... we can zap the configure test and always handle that part of processing... -- Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net Born in Roswell... married an alien...