https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27066
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
--- Comment #5 from cjw at daneel dot dyndns dot org 2006-04-12 19:08
---
There are probably disadvantages: it doesn't seem possible to bind to 127.0.0.1
this way. So choosing the socket domain that matches the address to
bind/connect to is probably a good idea. I thought other java imp
--- Comment #4 from mckinlay at redhat dot com 2006-04-11 18:08 ---
You are correct - I didn't notice that setTcpNoDelay, etc, call getImpl() -
however, this could be fixed if neccessary.
The question is whether this fix is the best one. Is there any disadvantage
(performance or otherwi
--- Comment #3 from cjw at daneel dot dyndns dot org 2006-04-06 22:38
---
AFAICT create() is called in Socket's getImpl() method, which in turn is called
from e.g. setTcpNoDelay() and calling that after a plain "new Socket()" means
no bind was done yet... Anyway, the address is not pass
--- Comment #2 from mckinlay at redhat dot com 2006-04-06 20:08 ---
I'm not sure I follow this. create() does not get called until the socket is
bound. Don't we know at that point whether we're binding to an IPV4 or IPV6
address?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27066
--- Comment #1 from cjw at daneel dot dyndns dot org 2006-04-06 19:43
---
Created an attachment (id=11219)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11219&action=view)
Example patch to fix IPv6 support
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27066
