Re: [cp-patches] RFC: checking for socklen_t

[Andreas Tobler]

Christian Thalinger wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-01-01 at 23:42 +0100, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> > Well, he hasn't yet, but I'll add my comment here.
> >
> > I'd like to see it as an unsigned int and not an int. Most systems I 
> > know use unsigned int for socklen_t. Posix.1g also recommends to use 
> > uint32_t for socklen_t.
>
> Well, on this very special OS not even uint32_t is defined.  So i'd vote
> for `unsigned int' if you think we should use unsigned.

That's fine with me. uint32_t is more or less 'unsigned int'.

Thanks,
Andreas