Wollongong, Recvfrom, and UDP

Thu, 14 Jul 88 11:34 EDT

I've had a few problems writing some UDP code under Wollongong's
protocol suite for VMS. Now I think I know why. In the man-like
documentation and in the QIO Programmer's Guide section of the
Wollongong documentation, the recvfrom procedure takes a from parameter
that is described as

       struct sockaddr_in *from

that is the socket structure we all know and love. However, this does
NOT get filled in correctly. I know the host I'm receiving from and the
info returned in from is half right; i.e., two out of four IP address
bytes are correct.

It turns out that you need to pass a pointer to a structure like

      struct sock_from {
               unsigned short from_len;
               struct sockaddr_in from_dat;

The point is that from_len gives you two extra bytes which somehow makes
a difference. Nevermind that the recvfrom call STILL needs a from_len
parameter of its own.

What I'm leaving out here is the only reason I discovered this is that
after my Ada bombed (yes, there is a whole mess of pragmas and other
stuff between me an the eventual QIO calls which is why it took me so
long to track down the bug) I started taking a closer look at the
Wollongong sample UDP code. I originally didn't pay too much attention
to the example because it was written in MACRO (which I will
confess/brag that I can read if I have to) and because the comments in
the code were wrong (saying TCP instead of UDP, saying the server
connected to the remote...). In the MACRO, the extra two bytes were
passed in the recvfrom call (but note that these bytes are NOT required
in the sendto call. The C examples used connected sockets and didn't
need to spec the from parameter. However, if you look in the C include
file, the sock_from type is defined, but it is never used in the

1) To be polite, I will ask if I am just confused.

2) If the answer to 1 is NO, then WHY IS THIS SO?

3) The obvious impact is that UDP code or anything else that uses
   recvfrom will have to get modified to work on Wollongong.

4) I will probably try to funnel these questions to Wollongong through
   the sub-cons on our project that deal with them, but I would
   like some feedback if anyone else has written UDP code under
   Wollongong and if there is some reason all of this happens.


--Jack Fitch -at Dockmaster.arpa

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:42:51 GMT