You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by rb...@covalent.net on 2000/11/08 19:39:41 UTC
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/main rfc1413.c
On 8 Nov 2000 trawick@locus.apache.org wrote:
> trawick 00/11/08 08:42:11
>
> Modified: src/main rfc1413.c
> Log:
> Fix the format strings used for apr_port_t (APR_PORT_T_FMT anyone?).
No. APR_PORT_T_FMT is wrong. :-) We know what a port is. It should be
defined as apr_uint16_t, so there is no reason to need a format macro.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/main rfc1413.c
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@bellsouth.net>.
Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk> writes:
> rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> >
> > On 8 Nov 2000 trawick@locus.apache.org wrote:
> >
> > > trawick 00/11/08 08:42:11
> > >
> > > Modified: src/main rfc1413.c
> > > Log:
> > > Fix the format strings used for apr_port_t (APR_PORT_T_FMT anyone?).
> >
> > No. APR_PORT_T_FMT is wrong. :-) We know what a port is. It should be
> > defined as apr_uint16_t, so there is no reason to need a format macro.
>
> Eh? I thought v6 changed that?
no; port numbers are in the same range...
AFAIK, the only impact to the TCP protocol for IPv6 is that the TCP
checksum is computed across a different set of bytes, and UDP is
unchanged.
--
Jeff Trawick | trawick@ibm.net | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/main rfc1413.c
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Ben Laurie wrote:
> rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> >
> > On 8 Nov 2000 trawick@locus.apache.org wrote:
> >
> > > trawick 00/11/08 08:42:11
> > >
> > > Modified: src/main rfc1413.c
> > > Log:
> > > Fix the format strings used for apr_port_t (APR_PORT_T_FMT anyone?).
> >
> > No. APR_PORT_T_FMT is wrong. :-) We know what a port is. It should be
> > defined as apr_uint16_t, so there is no reason to need a format macro.
>
> Eh? I thought v6 changed that?
I asked the other day, and was told that V6 still uses an unsigned 16 bit
int for the port, just the address changes.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/main rfc1413.c
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Ben Laurie wrote:
> rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> >
> > On 8 Nov 2000 trawick@locus.apache.org wrote:
> >
> > > trawick 00/11/08 08:42:11
> > >
> > > Modified: src/main rfc1413.c
> > > Log:
> > > Fix the format strings used for apr_port_t (APR_PORT_T_FMT anyone?).
> >
> > No. APR_PORT_T_FMT is wrong. :-) We know what a port is. It should be
> > defined as apr_uint16_t, so there is no reason to need a format macro.
>
> Eh? I thought v6 changed that?
I asked the other day, and was told that V6 still uses an unsigned 16 bit
int for the port, just the address changes.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/main rfc1413.c
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>
> On 8 Nov 2000 trawick@locus.apache.org wrote:
>
> > trawick 00/11/08 08:42:11
> >
> > Modified: src/main rfc1413.c
> > Log:
> > Fix the format strings used for apr_port_t (APR_PORT_T_FMT anyone?).
>
> No. APR_PORT_T_FMT is wrong. :-) We know what a port is. It should be
> defined as apr_uint16_t, so there is no reason to need a format macro.
Eh? I thought v6 changed that?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/main rfc1413.c
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>
> On 8 Nov 2000 trawick@locus.apache.org wrote:
>
> > trawick 00/11/08 08:42:11
> >
> > Modified: src/main rfc1413.c
> > Log:
> > Fix the format strings used for apr_port_t (APR_PORT_T_FMT anyone?).
>
> No. APR_PORT_T_FMT is wrong. :-) We know what a port is. It should be
> defined as apr_uint16_t, so there is no reason to need a format macro.
Eh? I thought v6 changed that?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff