On 10.11.21 16:41, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> writes:
>> Remove check for accept() argument types
>
> Early returns from the buildfarm are
>
> gaur | 2021-11-09 16:55:58 | auth.c:3235:17: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 6 of 'recvfrom'
differin signedness
> gaur | 2021-11-09 16:55:58 | pqcomm.c:722:9: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 3 of 'accept'
differin signedness
> gaur | 2021-11-09 16:55:58 | pqcomm.c:743:6: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 3 of
'getsockname'differ in signedness
> gaur | 2021-11-09 16:55:58 | pgstat.c:483:39: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 3 of
'getsockname'differ in signedness
> gaur | 2021-11-09 16:55:58 | pgstat.c:630:9: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 5 of
'getsockopt'differ in signedness
> gaur | 2021-11-09 16:55:58 | fe-connect.c:2760:11: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 5 of
'getsockopt'differ in signedness
> gaur | 2021-11-09 16:55:58 | fe-connect.c:2788:9: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 3 of
'getsockname'differ in signedness
>
> Right offhand I don't see any other animals complaining.
> May I suggest that "unsigned int" would be a better choice
> than "int" for socklen_t?
I have been waiting for a few more buildfarm members to finish (mainly
the other AIX and HPUX instances), but they appear to be on strike right
now. But based on existing results and extrapolation, it might be that
gaur is actually the only one without socklen_t, so we can do whatever
we want to make it happy. What does the man page say the correct type
would be? size_t?