Re: OS X compatibility patches

Hey ttn! Happy 2015.


On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Thien-Thi Nguyen <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have started to apply these patches.  (I've decided to
> decouple the copyright assignment tang{o,le} from the technical
> maintenance duties.  This means you will be added to AUTHORS,
> etc, and the copyright assignment will need to be done later,
> anyway, but at least we can get a usable release out w/o further
> delay.)

That's great! I'm flattered to be included in the AUTHORS file.


> I will look at it w/ fresh eyes tomorrow, but post this anyway
> in hopes that you can provide a cogent analysis (or perhaps a
> refutation, or a new improved patch) in the meantime.

It took me a moment to remember, but:

In the original code, `ifc.ifc_len' is always a multiple of `sizeof
(struct ifreq)', and so `n' is incremented in the UPDATE as many times
as there are interfaces in the buffer. `ifr' is just a pointer version
of `n'.

The new code acknowledges that the interface structures in `ifc' may
have different lengths, and so `n' and `ifr' need to be incremented by
the length of each structure in the buffer, an operation complex
enough that I moved it out of the UPDATE part of the `for' loop. Think
of it as handling a more general case than the original code.


> If we can resolve 0005 and apply 0006 (seems straightforward
> enough on quick skim) i think it's not unreasonable to release
> 0.2.3 in a few days, perhaps by end of week...

Yay! Thanks.