lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Patches: patch #9456, cleanup ioctlsocket for...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
patch #9456: cleanup ioctlsocket for LWIP_COMPAT_SOCKETS == 2
Submitter: | Joel Cunningham <jcunningham> | ||
Submitted: | Thu 21 Sep 2017 04:16:37 PM UTC | ||
Category: | sockets/netconn | Priority: | 5 - Normal |
Status: | Done | Privacy: | Public |
Assigned to: | jcunningham | Open/Closed: | Closed |
Planned Release: | None |
Fri 22 Sep 2017 01:54:09 PM UTC, comment #4: |
Joel Cunningham <jcunningham> |
Fri 22 Sep 2017 04:38:42 AM UTC, comment #3: Right. I guess my main confusion is about why we define winsock function names by default when LWIP_COMPAT_SOCKETS is enabled.
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Thu 21 Sep 2017 07:11:35 PM UTC, comment #2:
|
Joel Cunningham <jcunningham> |
Thu 21 Sep 2017 07:00:18 PM UTC, comment #1: Ehrm, the existing code indeed looks like a mess. However, I don't really understand your patch, either.
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Thu 21 Sep 2017 04:16:37 PM UTC, original submission:
Found these issue when enabling LWIP_COMPAT_SOCKETS == 2:
|
Joel Cunningham <jcunningham> |
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 3 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2017-09-22 | jcunningham | Status | None | Done | |
2017-09-22 | jcunningham | Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |
2017-09-21 | jcunningham | Attached File | - | Added 0001-sockets-cleanup-ioctlsocket-for-LWIP_COMPAT_SOCKETS-.patch, #41855 |
Powered by Savane 3.13-d3ae.
Corresponding source code
Patch submitted in 6cdfae124552d6ffb8b647d2391c71905d752437
Also the classification of functions into LWIP_POSIX_SOCKETS_IO_NAMES is not really clear, I guess. I think that block followed user requests...
Yes I agree the use of winsock names is a little strange, but now things are more consistent :)