[Larceny-users] is this a brain-problem or a bug?

[David Rush]

Forgot to include the list in my replay to Ray...Problem is not solved.

On Jan 8, 2008 3:46 AM, Ray Racine <ray.racine at comcast.net> wrote:
> Regarding the 32 / 64 bit.  I have a 2 CPU 64 bit Opteron (Sun
> workstation) running 64 bit Fedora Linux and FFI (including sockets) is
> working solid.
>
> I outlined the changes necessary in a posting in Nov.
>
> https://lists.ccs.neu.edu/pipermail/larceny-users/2007-November/000163.html

yes. These changes appear to have been rolled into the 0.96 source
code actually. well the -m32 flag was anyway, I didn't look all that
much closer.

> Regarding the overall problem of not working. I think you alluded to
> what I think is the problem, INET vs DOMAIN sockets.
>
> C sample is AF_UNIX (which is same-as AF_LOCAL).  As you pointed out
> Larceny defaults to AF_INET.  AFAIK everything should work just fine if
> you were to set the correct FAMILY-DOMAIN/PROTOCOL explicitly.

Well the original C code didn't set the family, as it is written into
by the call to accept(). The behavior was a little strange though.
When I didn't set the addr.sun_family field it would come back from
the first accept() set to 0x8c0, which makes almost no sense at all,
but on the second accept() it would come back as a 0x1 which is a
AF_LOCAL socket as expected. SO I changed the C code to set the socket
family - thee was no change in observed behavior.

There was also no change in behavior when I changed the
sockaddr_un.sun_family field to be socket/AF_LOCAL in the Larceny
code. So unfortunately, I do not think this is really the problem in
this code.


david rush
--
Once you label me, you negate me
    - Soren Kierkegaard



-- 
Once you label me, you negate me
    - Soren Kierkegaard