Re: AF_LOCAL vs AF_UNIX

[Andreas Schwab <schwab@issan.informatik.uni-dortmund.de>]

Kristoffer Lawson <setok@fishpool.com> writes:

|> I'm not totally sure on this issue, but I'm guessing the definition for
|> AF_LOCAL is missing from the MiNT socket.h header file? POSIX renamed
|> AF_UNIX to be AF_LOCAL (quite logical considering what POSIX is attempting
|> to accomplish).

Actually, POSIX renamed AF_LOCAL to AF_FILE, and AF_UNIX is the old BSD
name for AF_LOCAL.  This is from <bits/socket.h> on Linux:

/* Protocol families.  */
#define	PF_UNSPEC	0	/* Unspecified.  */
#define	PF_LOCAL	1	/* Local to host (pipes and file-domain).  */
#define	PF_UNIX		PF_LOCAL /* Old BSD name for PF_LOCAL.  */
#define	PF_FILE		PF_LOCAL /* POSIX name for PF_LOCAL.  */

(The AF_* names always have the same value as PF_*.)

|> As far as I can tell they are completely equivilent

Yes, they are.

-- 
Andreas Schwab                                      "And now for something
schwab@issan.informatik.uni-dortmund.de              completely different"
schwab@gnu.org