Message145093
| Author |
neologix |
| Recipients |
amaury.forgeotdarc, giampaolo.rodola, mluis, neologix, ogait87, orsenthil, pitrou, python-dev, rosslagerwall, slanden, vinay.sajip, vstinner |
| Date |
2011年10月07日.16:03:55 |
| SpamBayes Score |
0.046420384 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1318003436.08.0.590286657713.issue10141@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> which would imply that on this system at least, the AF_CAN definition is
> supposed to come from elsewhere.
Yes, from <bits/socket.h>.
Looks like a crappy libc version: <linux/can.h> is present, but AF_CAN is not defined.
Just for fun, is PF_CAN defined?
You might try the following in configure.in:
"""
# On Linux, can.h and can/raw.h require sys/socket.h
AC_CHECK_HEADERS(linux/can.h linux/can/raw.h,,,[
#ifdef HAVE_SYS_SOCKET_H
#include <sys/socket.h>
#ifndef AF_CAN
# error "AF_CAN not defined"
#endif
#endif
])
""" |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2011年10月07日 16:03:56 | neologix | set | recipients:
+ neologix, vinay.sajip, amaury.forgeotdarc, orsenthil, pitrou, vstinner, giampaolo.rodola, slanden, rosslagerwall, python-dev, ogait87, mluis |
| 2011年10月07日 16:03:56 | neologix | set | messageid: <1318003436.08.0.590286657713.issue10141@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2011年10月07日 16:03:55 | neologix | link | issue10141 messages |
| 2011年10月07日 16:03:55 | neologix | create |
|