[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bug-inetutils] Restoration of ping.

From: Mats Erik Andersson
Subject: Re: [bug-inetutils] Restoration of ping.
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 22:14:52 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

onsdag den  2 maj 2012 klockan 14:47 skrev Alfred M. Szmidt detta:
>    Well, OpenSolaris, NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and DragonFly BSD are
>    in agreement of using "struct icmp" and all macro names, save that
>    the BSDs might add a few beyond ICMP_MAXTYPE. Some small
>    disagreement on n_short/uint16_t and n_time/uint32_t exists,
>    though.
>    Then comes Glibc along, keeps all of the above, adds a complete and
>    disjoint set of macros, and duplicates the old structure as 'struct
>    icmphdr'. Chicken race, if I ever saw one!
> I not convinced by such an argument (foo vs. bar); the simple case is
> that GNU is our main target, and the GNU C library is the C library of
> that system.

My observation was not meant as an argument really, but only
expresses my surprise that the Glibc authors did not dare to
exclude the heritage from BSD.  Could the new set have originated
with SysV?

> We should name it after glibc, since that is the main C library on
> GNU.  The problem with the RFCs is that they are non-free
> documentation; so we should not really refer to them even though they
> are the standard.  Same with POSIX.
>    For reference I append the changes needed for 'libicmp/icmp.h'.
> Could you post a diff?

Forgot it at first attempt. I am now convinced to let macros
and typedefs stay as they are, only to mend and amend the code
and descriptions to achieve corrections and improvements, so
the present difference text will only serve as informal documen-
tation of potential portability quirks for ICMP related macros.

  Mats E A

Attachment: icmp_macro.diff
Description: Text Data

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]