Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 23:13:28 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: checked in fix for "ftp doesn't work on windows 95"
Message-ID: <20010915231328.A30078@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i

I checked in a fix for the problem in the subject.

AFAICT, Windows 95 actually returns a structure with a *different
alignment* than Windows NT.  I'm not sure why this wasn't some kind of
problem before but the reason it is a problem now is that Corrinna's
recent change to copy static buffers from winsock functions into
our own static buffer didn't deal with this inexplicable misalignment.

The good news is that, thanks to Corinna's use of a standard function
for allocating the servent structure, it was trivial to fix this problem.
I only had to make one minor change in the function and it *seems*
like Windows 95 is working fine again.  I suspect that in reality this
may be the first time that this function ever worked right under Windows
95.

I checked to see if other network structures suffered from this
inexplicable misalignment but didn't see anything.  I find it very hard
to believe that we haven't noticed this problem before but gdb doesn't
lie.  I compared the result from winsock's getservbyname on 2K and 95
and the packing was definitely different.

I suppose that this could be a Winsock 1.1/2.x problem.  If so, maybe
we'll be seeing people complaining about 1.3.3 not working on NT 3.51,
too.

cgf