Peter Eisentraut writes:> pete.forman@westgeo.com writes:> > > Depending on the version of Solaris and the compiler
flagsthe> > third argument can be a pointer to socklen_t, void, size_t or> > int.> > The argument is question cannot
possiblybe of a different width> than int, unless someone is *really* on drugs at Sun. Therefore,> if the third
argumentto accept() is "void *" then we just take> "int". Evidently there will not be a compiler problem if you pass>
an"int *" where a "void *" is expected. The fact that int may be> signed differently than the actual argument should
notbe a> problem, since evidently the true argument type varies with> compiler options, but surely the BSD socket layer
doesnot.
Unless there is more than one library that implements accept, or if
accept is mapped as a macro to another function.
Whatever, I'd be happier if "void *" were mapped to "unsigned int*" as
that is what the Solaris 7 library is expecting. But it's no big deal
if you want to go with signed.
--
Pete Forman -./\.- Disclaimer: This post is originated
Western Geophysical -./\.- by myself and does not represent
pete.forman@westgeo.com -./\.- the opinion of Baker Hughes or
http://www.crosswinds.net/~petef -./\.- its divisions.
***== My old email address gsez020@kryten.bedford.waii.com will ==***
***== not be operational from Fri 10 to Tue 14 Nov 2000. ==***
