Bug#187391: bug found (in libc)
Robert Millan <zeratul2@wanadoo.es> writes:
> the problem can be fixed by simply appliing this patch
> to bits/sockaddr.h:
As we aim for binary compatibility with linux, I'm pretty sure we want
to use the same definition of struct sockaddr and sa_family_t as on
linux.
> which indicate a disparity on what the POSIX 1003.1g standard
> says. is sa_family_t an unsigned char or an unsigned short int?
>
> you can fix this bug with the first diff. but someone should
> take a look at POSIX.1g to find out which of short int or char
> is the correct value.
I haven't read the posix documents, but I would be surprised if it
specifies the exact size of sa_family_t. Posix doesn't care about
binary compatibility, so I'd expect that all that matters for posix
compliance is that the type exists and is big enough for storing the
constant AF_INET and the other AF_* constants.
The entire point of standardizing types like sa_family_t is to allow
implementations to use any size they find convenient, and at the same
time make it possible to write portable source code.
/Niels
PS. I'm not all that familiar with the debian bug tracking system. I
left the "Cc: 187391@bugs.debian.org" in, but removed the "Cc:
control@bugs.debian.org". Let me know if I should have done
differently.
Reply to: