Re: Test for getaddrinfo() broken on Tru64 UNIX 5.1

2007-10-15 Thread Bruno Haible
Ben Pfaff wrote: > For what it's worth, is a smaller header that also > defines NULL. You're right. Better use . 2007-10-15 Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * m4/getaddrinfo.m4 (gl_GETADDRINFO, gl_PREREQ_GETADDRINFO): Use instead of since we only need NULL. Reported

Re: Test for getaddrinfo() broken on Tru64 UNIX 5.1

2007-10-15 Thread Ben Pfaff
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hmm. How about making sure that NULL is actually defined, before using it? > Proposed patch: [...] > + #include For what it's worth, is a smaller header that also defines NULL. -- "J'avais trouv'e ma religion : rien ne me parut plus important qu'un l

Re: Test for getaddrinfo() broken on Tru64 UNIX 5.1

2007-10-15 Thread Simon Josefsson
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Simon, > >> > So, the above should be fixed as well. >> >> Fixed, thanks. > > Hmm. How about making sure that NULL is actually defined, before using it? Thanks, please commit. /Simon

Re: Test for getaddrinfo() broken on Tru64 UNIX 5.1

2007-10-15 Thread Bruno Haible
Simon, > > So, the above should be fixed as well. > > Fixed, thanks. Hmm. How about making sure that NULL is actually defined, before using it? Proposed patch: *** m4/getaddrinfo.m4.orig 2007-10-15 12:33:54.0 +0200 --- m4/getaddrinfo.m4 2007-10-15 12:30:25.0 +0200 ***

Re: Test for getaddrinfo() broken on Tru64 UNIX 5.1

2007-10-15 Thread Simon Josefsson
Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Oct 13, 2007 at 16:25:21PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote: >> I'm applying your patch, with modifications: >> ... >> 4) Don't use 0 to designate null pointers. That doesn't sit well with >> C++ compilers. > > I only used 0 because further down in

Re: Test for getaddrinfo() broken on Tru64 UNIX 5.1

2007-10-14 Thread Albert Chin
On Wed, Oct 13, 2007 at 16:25:21PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote: > I'm applying your patch, with modifications: > ... > 4) Don't use 0 to designate null pointers. That doesn't sit well with > C++ compilers. I only used 0 because further down in m4/getaddrinfo.m4 is: AC_TRY_LINK([ #ifdef

Re: 0 vs. NULL (was: Re: Test for getaddrinfo() broken on Tru64 UNIX 5.1)

2007-10-13 Thread Bruno Haible
Ben Pfaff wrote: > ISO C says that NULL can be defined as 0, without a cast to void > *, and it is always defined that way in C++. The latter statement is not true. ISO C++ 18.1.(3) says: "The macro NULL is an implementation-defined C++ null pointer constant in this International Standard (4

Re: 0 vs. NULL (was: Test for getaddrinfo() broken on Tru64 UNIX 5.1)

2007-10-13 Thread Bruno Haible
Benoit SIGOURE wrote: > In C++, `0' is the preferred way of expressing `NULL'. In C++, 0 can be used instead of NULL everywhere except inside sizeof and varargs argument lists. But what is _preferred_, depends on your and your co-developers' habits. People who also program in C prefer NULL becau

Re: Test for getaddrinfo() broken on Tru64 UNIX 5.1

2007-10-13 Thread Jim Meyering
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Benoit SIGOURE wrote: >> > 4) Don't use 0 to designate null pointers. That doesn't sit well with >> > C++ compilers. >> >> s/C++/C/ right? > > Actually, neither C nor C++ compilers cry when you use 0 for NULL. It's only > my personal preference. I p

Re: Test for getaddrinfo() broken on Tru64 UNIX 5.1

2007-10-13 Thread Ben Pfaff
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On platforms where integers aren't the same size as pointers, things can > go wrong if 1) you pass 0 to a function that expects a pointer and no > function prototype was available during compilation, or 2) you pass it > to a function that takes a varia

Re: Test for getaddrinfo() broken on Tru64 UNIX 5.1

2007-10-13 Thread Benoit SIGOURE
On Oct 13, 2007, at 9:34 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote: Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Benoit SIGOURE wrote: 4) Don't use 0 to designate null pointers. That doesn't sit well with C++ compilers. s/C++/C/ right? Actually, neither C nor C++ compilers cry when you use 0 for NUL

Re: Test for getaddrinfo() broken on Tru64 UNIX 5.1

2007-10-13 Thread Simon Josefsson
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Benoit SIGOURE wrote: >> > 4) Don't use 0 to designate null pointers. That doesn't sit well with >> > C++ compilers. >> >> s/C++/C/ right? > > Actually, neither C nor C++ compilers cry when you use 0 for NULL. It's only > my personal preference.

Re: Test for getaddrinfo() broken on Tru64 UNIX 5.1

2007-10-13 Thread Bruno Haible
Benoit SIGOURE wrote: > > 4) Don't use 0 to designate null pointers. That doesn't sit well with > > C++ compilers. > > s/C++/C/ right? Actually, neither C nor C++ compilers cry when you use 0 for NULL. It's only my personal preference. Bruno

Re: Test for getaddrinfo() broken on Tru64 UNIX 5.1

2007-10-13 Thread Simon Josefsson
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi Albert, > > Simon has not taken this up in 3 days, so I'm doing it. Thanks! Your patch looks fine to me. /Simon

Re: Test for getaddrinfo() broken on Tru64 UNIX 5.1

2007-10-13 Thread Benoit SIGOURE
On Oct 13, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Bruno Haible wrote: 4) Don't use 0 to designate null pointers. That doesn't sit well with C++ compilers. s/C++/C/ right? -- Benoit Sigoure aka Tsuna EPITA Research and Development Laboratory PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Test for getaddrinfo() broken on Tru64 UNIX 5.1

2007-10-13 Thread Bruno Haible
Hi Albert, Simon has not taken this up in 3 days, so I'm doing it. Albert Chin wrote: > m4/getaddrinfo.m4 tests for getaddrinfo with: > AC_CHECK_FUNCS(getaddrinfo > > This assumes getaddrinfo is available on the system under the name > `getaddrinfo'. Not so on Tru64 UNIX 5.1 where has: > #i

Test for getaddrinfo() broken on Tru64 UNIX 5.1

2007-10-10 Thread Albert Chin
m4/getaddrinfo.m4 tests for getaddrinfo with: AC_CHECK_FUNCS(getaddrinfo This assumes getaddrinfo is available on the system under the name `getaddrinfo'. Not so on Tru64 UNIX 5.1 where has: #if defined (_SOCKADDR_LEN) || defined (_XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED) #define getaddrinfo ngetaddrinfo #