[krbdev.mit.edu #2598] Cannot compile KRB5 on HP-UX 11

[Ken Raeburn]

"Douglas E. Engert" <deengert at anl.gov> writes:
> Dehner at mit.edu, "Benjamin T.\" via RT\"" wrote:
>> Release: 1.3.4
>> Environment: HP ANSI-C compiler
>> System: HP-UX 11.i RISC 64-bit
>> Description:
>>         KRB5 compile fails on foreachaddr.c, does not recognize lifconf
>> structure.  It is possible that
>>         HP-UX does not support the SIOCGLIFCONF ioctl.
>> How-To-Repeat: compile on HP-UX 11.i
>> Fix: Either avoid incomopatible ioctl, or get vendor to implement it.
>
> I have used this with HP-UX and krb5-1.3.2
>
>
>>
>>
>> --- ,foreachaddr.c      Mon Sep 29 14:07:29 2003
>> +++ foreachaddr.c       Fri Feb 27 13:21:59 2004
>> @@ -259,7 +259,7 @@
>>      return ret;
>>  }
>>
>> -#ifdef SIOCGLIFCONF /* Solaris */
>> +#if defined(SIOCGLIFCONF) && !defined(__hpux) /* Solaris */
>>  static int
>>  get_lifconf (int af, int s, size_t *lenp, /*@out@*/ char *buf)
>>      /*@modifies *buf,*lenp@*/
>> @@ -431,7 +431,7 @@
>>      return 0;
>>  }
>>
>> -#elif defined (SIOCGLIFNUM) /* Solaris 8 and later; Sol 7? */
>> +#elif defined (SIOCGLIFNUM) && !defined(__hpux) /* Solaris 8 and later; Sol 7? */
>>
>>  static int
>>  foreach_localaddr (/*@null@*/ void *data,
>>

I'm reluctant to add an OS test, as Doug suggested, when we could make
it a feature test.

If "struct lifconf" isn't present, presumably a test for that
structure will do?

Does the definition of or comments near SIOCGLIFCONF in the HP-UX
header files indicate what data structure should be used with
SIOCGLIFCONF?  Is it similar to the type "struct ifconf", such that
perhaps it's intended to be used in the same way as Solaris did
things, just with different names?

Actually, there's something else I'd ask one of you to check for too:
If there's a "struct lifconf" in the header files, but not defined
because it's dependent on some _XOPEN_foo macro or something like
that, that we could enable?

Unfortunately, I don't have any HP-UX 11 system available to test
things on. :-(

Ben, do you have IPv6 running at your site, so you could test to see
if a patched version finds local IPv6 addresses or not?  Doug's
already told me that he does not.

Ken