On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Ben Harris wrote:

> At the moment, the return type of inet_addr() in NetBSD is unsigned long.
> In version 2 of the Single Unix Standard, and now POSIX, it's specified as
> in_addr_t, which is equivalent to uint32_t.  Fixing this would obviously
> cause no problems on ILP32 systems, but I can imagine it might upset LP64
> ones.
>
> So, my question is:  are there any systems on which the ABI differs for
> functions which return uint32_t as opposed to unsigned long?  For the
> obvious implementation (function return value in a register), I'd expect
> not, but I'd like confirmation of this so I can decide how to proceed.

Uhm, I'm confused. Isn't the right way to do this using RENAME magic?
Thus it won't matter?

Take care,

Bill