[PATCH] D98581: [llvm-jitlink] Add diagnostic output and port executor to getaddrinfo(3) as well

[Stefan Gränitz via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

sgraenitz added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/tools/llvm-jitlink/llvm-jitlink-executor/llvm-jitlink-executor.cpp:93
+  outs() << "Listening at " << Host << ":" << PortStr << "\n";
+  return accept(SockFD, AI->ai_addr, &AI->ai_addrlen);
 #endif
----------------
rzurob wrote:
> This line fails compilation on AIX in 64-bit mode:
> 
> ```
> llvm/tools/llvm-jitlink/llvm-jitlink-executor/llvm-jitlink-executor.cpp:93:10: error: no matching function for call to 'accept'
>   return accept(SockFD, AI->ai_addr, &AI->ai_addrlen);
>          ^~~~~~
> /usr/include/sys/socket.h:635:9: note: candidate function not viable: no known conversion from 'size_t *' (aka 'unsigned long *') to 'socklen_t *' (aka 'unsigned int *') for 3rd argument
> int     accept(int, struct sockaddr *__restrict__, socklen_t *__restrict__);
>         ^
> 1 error generated.
> Error while processing llvm/tools/llvm-jitlink/llvm-jitlink-executor/llvm-jitlink-executor.cpp.
> ```
> 
> The size is always going to fit into an unsigned int.  So perhaps we need to store AI->ai_addrlen into a socklen_t temp first?
Interesting, the ai_addrlen field should be of type socklen_t naturally:
```
struct addrinfo {
  int              ai_flags;
  int              ai_family;
  int              ai_socktype;
  int              ai_protocol;
  socklen_t        ai_addrlen;
  struct sockaddr *ai_addr;
  char            *ai_canonname;
  struct addrinfo *ai_next;
};
```

Do you think it's fine to keep this as a special-case for AIX? Does the `connect` call on the client side in D98579 suffer from the same issue?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D98581/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D98581