On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 17:16, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 17:04, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I think what this shows is we should look for a way to avoid using
>>> INADDR_NONE.
>
>>> From some more googling
>> (http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/inet_addr.html),
>> it says it will return (in_addr_t)(-1), though, so maybe we should
>> just move that #ifdef out to some global place?
>
> Given the way that's written, I think we should just compare the result
> to (in_addr_t)(-1), and not assume there's any macro provided for that.
Well, that doesn't match all other platforms..
> However, now that I know the real issue is you're using inet_addr, I
> would like to know why you're not using inet_aton instead; or even
> better, something that also copes with IPv6.
"Path of least resistance?"
Which method would you suggest?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
