From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] /sys/include/ape/errno.h
Message-ID: <20040106124711.K28128@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
References: <20040106122410.J28128@cackle.proxima.alt.za> <078bf5b96dbd23d46139b5fb8d927e8f@terzarima.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <078bf5b96dbd23d46139b5fb8d927e8f@terzarima.net>; from Charles Forsyth on Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:29:18AM +0000
Date: Tue,  6 Jan 2004 12:47:11 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: b2b87eaa-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:29:18AM +0000, Charles Forsyth wrote:
>
> the error numbers can never be relied upon;
> that's why they've got symbolic names
> (except in NFS where a subset is assigned specific numbers
> corresponding to the Sun errno assignment of the time,
> that often differ from those on the communicating systems,
> requiring errno swizzling)

Thanks, Charles.

Hm, in other words, I may as well start working on porting the
socket code I am working on to Plan 9, rather than make adjustments
for the missing error codes (EWOULDBLOCK and ECONNRESET).

That may make the next question redundant: many socket functions
are prototyped in APE with "int *len" as their last argument.
These days, in NetBSD these use soclen_t which is normally a uint,
but I think provision has been made for an int in some special
instances (I think it's a platform issue).

Does anyone know if the POSIX spec has changed to use "uint *len"
instead of "int *len" in the recent past (since the APE modules
were written)?  Or "socklen *len" or "size_t *len" as I have seen
all of these on occasion?

++L