Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 00:08:38 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include/arpa inet.h src/sys/netinet in.h src Message-ID: <20010324000838.D9431@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103241848410.26437-100000@besplex.bde.org>; from bde@zeta.org.au on Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 07:04:24PM %2B1100 References: <XFMail.010323233311.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103241848410.26437-100000@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> [010324 00:05] wrote: > On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, John Baldwin wrote: > > > On 23-Mar-01 Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote: > > > ... > > > Log: > > > IPv4 address is not unsigned int. This change introduces in_addr_t. > > > It seems i386 is evil and doesn't use in_addr_t or in_port_t in its > > machine/endian.h. This probably breaks ia64 as well. Will you move in_port_t > > into sys/types.h as well and then convert the i386 endian.h to use the right > > types? > > wollman once objected to using it there. I don't remember why, but > it may have been because these types are misspellings of uint32_t, > etc. ipv4 addresses have precisely 32 bits, so using an opaque type > for them can be considered bogus. Also, in_addr_t is a bogus name. > Only ipv4 internet address fit in it. I agree that in_addr_t is very bogus. Any chance on doing something like in_addr4_t or something that's correct? -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] Daemon News Magazine in your snail-mail! http://magazine.daemonnews.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010324000838.D9431>