Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 14:04:38 +0100 From: njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk (Niall Smart) To: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com>, Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> Cc: Nate Lawson <nate@almond.elite.net>, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Apparent bug in sendto() with raw sockets Message-ID: <E0ypYBC-0005Qv-00@oak67.doc.ic.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com> "Re: Apparent bug in sendto() with raw sockets" (Jun 25, 11:40am)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 25, 11:40am, Bill Fenner wrote: } Subject: Re: Apparent bug in sendto() with raw sockets > In message <Pine.BSF.3.95.980625101801.21522C-100000@current1.whistle.com>you w > interface, which requires length and offset in host order. AFAIK, > this original implementation happened on suns, which is why nobody > noticed at the time. We are compatible with this original > implementation. OpenBSD and Linux chose to change the semantics > to the ones that are less surprising but not backwards compatible. I think its more important to be correct in this area, raw sockets programming can be tricky enough without what will seem to the user like gratuitous changes. If Linux and OpenBSD have done it, thats all the more reason to go for it... $2c Niall To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E0ypYBC-0005Qv-00>