Subject: Re: CVS commit: src
To: Rui Paulo <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/14/2006 13:48:02
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 06:54:20PM +0100, Rui Paulo wrote:
> At Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:19:56 +0000 (UTC),
> Brian Ginsbach wrote:
> > Log Message:
> > Add EAFNOSUPPORT as a possible error if the address family is not
> > supported. This adds further differentiation between which argument to
> > socket(2) caused the error. No longer are invalid domain (address fami=
> > errors classified as ENOPROTOSUPPORT errors. This should make socket(2)
> > conform to current POSIX and X/Open standards. Fixes PR/33676.
> I was wondering, should we version socket(2) ?
I doubt it. I don't think this is that big a change, and versioning would=
mean we would have to support the old version ~ forever.
While I don't think EAFNOTSUPPORT is the right error (we have EPFNOSUPPORT=
which man errno seems to say is right), it's much better than=20
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----