From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <d8da3b6e57b25ebc9e9c8be03e5863e2@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 07:39:28 +0200
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <2906a8aa08ff577a1ff6393ab13d50ef@brasstown.quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] incompatible type signature
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7e22487c-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> it appears that there are mistakes in ntohl and ntohs.
> for obvious reasons int is valid for both "unsigned long" and
> "unsigned short" due to the usual conversions (and the local,
> temporary conventions on amd64), but remember, type
> signatures are based on C types, and may differ from the
> implementation.

I presumed I missed the obvious errors because I didn't know what to
look for.  I'll see if I can internalise this for future use.  With
the CVS sources, turning on "T" creates an avalanche of errors.  I
suspect the same goes for OpenLDAP.

++L