gethostbyname() ---- Delete Resulting Pointer?

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by aj, Dec 6, 2007.

  1. aj

    aj Guest

    I have the following snippet of code. On some platforms, the delete
    calls works, on Linux, it core dumps (memory dump) at the delete
    call. Am I responsible for deleting the memory that gethostbyname
    allocated?

    struct hostent *lHostInfo;
    lHostInfo = gethostbyname(ipHost.c_str());
    memcpy(&(lDestAddr.sin_addr), lHostInfo->h_addr_list[0], lHostInfo-
    >h_length);

    delete lHostInfo;

    I am under the impression that you don't delete anything unless you
    personally "new'ed" it. Is this theory correct in this situation?
     
    aj, Dec 6, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. aj

    Guest

    On Dec 6, 10:36 am, aj <> wrote:
    > I have the following snippet of code. On some platforms, the delete
    > calls works, on Linux, it core dumps (memory dump) at the delete
    > call. Am I responsible for deleting the memory that gethostbyname
    > allocated?
    >
    > struct hostent *lHostInfo;
    > lHostInfo = gethostbyname(ipHost.c_str());
    > memcpy(&(lDestAddr.sin_addr), lHostInfo->h_addr_list[0], lHostInfo->h_length);
    >
    > delete lHostInfo;
    >
    > I am under the impression that you don't delete anything unless you
    > personally "new'ed" it. Is this theory correct in this situation?


    There is no 'new' or 'delete' in the C language.

    gethostbyname is not defined by the C standard.

    --
    Fred Kleinschmdit
     
    , Dec 6, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. aj

    Lew Pitcher Guest

    On Dec 6, 1:36 pm, aj <> wrote:
    > I have the following snippet of code. On some platforms, the delete
    > calls works, on Linux, it core dumps (memory dump) at the delete
    > call. Am I responsible for deleting the memory that gethostbyname
    > allocated?
    >
    > struct hostent *lHostInfo;
    > lHostInfo = gethostbyname(ipHost.c_str());
    > memcpy(&(lDestAddr.sin_addr), lHostInfo->h_addr_list[0], lHostInfo->h_length);
    >
    > delete lHostInfo;
    >
    > I am under the impression that you don't delete anything unless you
    > personally "new'ed" it. Is this theory correct in this situation?


    Sorry, but C does not have
    - a keyword called "delete",
    - a keyword called "new"
    - a standard function called gethostbyname()
    - a standard struture called hostent

    I suspect that you are writing C++ code (your mention of "new" and
    "delete", and your use of method calls in your example code), which is
    off-topic in comp.lang.c

    You probably want to discuss this topic in comp.lang.c++

    HTH
    --
    Lew
     
    Lew Pitcher, Dec 6, 2007
    #3
  4. aj

    aj Guest

    On Dec 6, 2:14 pm, Lew Pitcher <> wrote:
    > On Dec 6, 1:36 pm, aj <> wrote:
    >
    > > I have the following snippet of code. On some platforms, the delete
    > > calls works, on Linux, it core dumps (memory dump) at the delete
    > > call. Am I responsible for deleting the memory that gethostbyname
    > > allocated?

    >
    > > struct hostent *lHostInfo;
    > > lHostInfo = gethostbyname(ipHost.c_str());
    > > memcpy(&(lDestAddr.sin_addr), lHostInfo->h_addr_list[0], lHostInfo->h_length);

    >
    > > delete lHostInfo;

    >
    > > I am under the impression that you don't delete anything unless you
    > > personally "new'ed" it. Is this theory correct in this situation?

    >
    > Sorry, but C does not have
    > - a keyword called "delete",
    > - a keyword called "new"
    > - a standard function called gethostbyname()
    > - a standard struture called hostent
    >
    > I suspect that you are writing C++ code (your mention of "new" and
    > "delete", and your use of method calls in your example code), which is
    > off-topic in comp.lang.c
    >
    > You probably want to discuss this topic in comp.lang.c++
    >
    > HTH
    > --
    > Lew


    As usual, you guys are no help, just sticklers for details.

    Thanks for the non-help.
     
    aj, Dec 6, 2007
    #4
  5. aj <> writes:

    > I have the following snippet of code. On some platforms, the delete
    > calls works, on Linux, it core dumps (memory dump) at the delete
    > call. Am I responsible for deleting the memory that gethostbyname
    > allocated?


    You are doubly off-topic. delete in C++, not C, and gethostbyname is
    a *nix function. If you want to post somewhere, I'd choose
    comp.unix.programmer, but man gethostbyname would be quicker (the
    delete is wrong, BTW).

    --
    Ben.
     
    Ben Bacarisse, Dec 6, 2007
    #5
  6. aj

    Lew Pitcher Guest

    On Dec 6, 2:23 pm, aj <> wrote:
    > On Dec 6, 2:14 pm, Lew Pitcher <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Dec 6, 1:36 pm, aj <> wrote:

    >
    > > > I have the following snippet of code. On some platforms, the delete
    > > > calls works, on Linux, it core dumps (memory dump) at the delete
    > > > call. Am I responsible for deleting the memory that gethostbyname
    > > > allocated?

    >
    > > > struct hostent *lHostInfo;
    > > > lHostInfo = gethostbyname(ipHost.c_str());
    > > > memcpy(&(lDestAddr.sin_addr), lHostInfo->h_addr_list[0], lHostInfo->h_length);

    >
    > > > delete lHostInfo;

    >
    > > > I am under the impression that you don't delete anything unless you
    > > > personally "new'ed" it. Is this theory correct in this situation?

    >
    > > Sorry, but C does not have
    > > - a keyword called "delete",
    > > - a keyword called "new"
    > > - a standard function called gethostbyname()
    > > - a standard struture called hostent

    >
    > > I suspect that you are writing C++ code (your mention of "new" and
    > > "delete", and your use of method calls in your example code), which is
    > > off-topic in comp.lang.c

    >
    > > You probably want to discuss this topic in comp.lang.c++

    >
    > > HTH
    > > --
    > > Lew

    >
    > As usual, you guys are no help, just sticklers for details.
    >
    > Thanks for the non-help.


    You're welcome.

    After all, what else is comp.lang.C here for, but to *not* discuss
    COBOL, JAVA, C++, .NET, C#, how to tune your car, oriental cooking,
    and observance of the Jewish faith?
     
    Lew Pitcher, Dec 6, 2007
    #6
  7. "aj" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:...
    >I have the following snippet of code. On some platforms, the delete
    > calls works, on Linux, it core dumps (memory dump) at the delete
    > call. Am I responsible for deleting the memory that gethostbyname
    > allocated?
    >
    > struct hostent *lHostInfo;
    > lHostInfo = gethostbyname(ipHost.c_str());
    > memcpy(&(lDestAddr.sin_addr), lHostInfo->h_addr_list[0], lHostInfo-
    >>h_length);

    > delete lHostInfo;
    >
    > I am under the impression that you don't delete anything unless you
    > personally "new'ed" it. Is this theory correct in this situation?

    for gethostbyname() ask in comp.unix.programmer, it's not topical here

    for new/delete ask in comp.lang.c++ as neither exists in C, although I think
    that a delete without a corresponding new won't work.

    Bye, Jojo
     
    Joachim Schmitz, Dec 6, 2007
    #7
  8. "aj" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:...
    > On Dec 6, 2:14 pm, Lew Pitcher <> wrote:
    >> On Dec 6, 1:36 pm, aj <> wrote:

    ....
    > As usual, you guys are no help, just sticklers for details.
    >
    > Thanks for the non-help.

    And you believe that this statement helps in getting helped? I guess this
    just helps in getting you plonked...

    You've been given all help there is, within topicalitiy of this group, which
    in this case it pointing you to the groups where you might find help

    Bye, Jojo
     
    Joachim Schmitz, Dec 6, 2007
    #8
  9. aj

    aj Guest

    On Dec 6, 2:39 pm, "Joachim Schmitz" <>
    wrote:
    > "aj" <> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:...> On Dec 6, 2:14 pm, Lew Pitcher <> wrote:
    > >> On Dec 6, 1:36 pm, aj <> wrote:

    > ...
    > > As usual, you guys are no help, just sticklers for details.

    >
    > > Thanks for the non-help.

    >
    > And you believe that this statement helps in getting helped? I guess this
    > just helps in getting you plonked...
    >
    > You've been given all help there is, within topicalitiy of this group, which
    > in this case it pointing you to the groups where you might find help
    >
    > Bye, Jojo


    My question wasn't about "delete" or "new". My question was if I am
    responsible for deallocating the pointer provided by a certain
    function. I wasn't aware that that particular function,
    gethostbyname(), isn't in the C standard. Regardless, it is still C
    syntax, compiled by a C compiler. I will save future (read: all)
    questions for a more appropriate newsgroup. Sorry you felt the need
    to plonk me.
     
    aj, Dec 6, 2007
    #9
  10. aj

    Flash Gordon Guest

    aj wrote, On 06/12/07 18:36:

    Firstly gethostbyname is not part of standard C so questions about it
    would be better directed to a group dedicated to your platform such as
    comp.unix.programmer, but before you do that you should at least do some
    basic research, such as reading the man page for the function.

    > I have the following snippet of code. On some platforms, the delete
    > calls works, on Linux, it core dumps (memory dump) at the delete
    > call. Am I responsible for deleting the memory that gethostbyname
    > allocated?
    >
    > struct hostent *lHostInfo;
    > lHostInfo = gethostbyname(ipHost.c_str());
    > memcpy(&(lDestAddr.sin_addr), lHostInfo->h_addr_list[0], lHostInfo-
    >> h_length);

    > delete lHostInfo;
    >
    > I am under the impression that you don't delete anything unless you
    > personally "new'ed" it. Is this theory correct in this situation?


    Secondly delete C++ and not C. You need to decide which language you are
    using since there are major differences (delete being one of them) and
    stick to it and not post questions to do with C++ here.
    --
    Flash Gordon
     
    Flash Gordon, Dec 6, 2007
    #10
  11. aj

    Lew Pitcher Guest

    On Dec 6, 2:59 pm, aj <> wrote:
    > On Dec 6, 2:39 pm, "Joachim Schmitz" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > "aj" <> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:...> On Dec 6, 2:14 pm, Lew Pitcher <> wrote:
    > > >> On Dec 6, 1:36 pm, aj <> wrote:

    > > ...
    > > > As usual, you guys are no help, just sticklers for details.

    >
    > > > Thanks for the non-help.

    >
    > > And you believe that this statement helps in getting helped? I guess this
    > > just helps in getting you plonked...

    >
    > > You've been given all help there is, within topicalitiy of this group, which
    > > in this case it pointing you to the groups where you might find help

    >
    > > Bye, Jojo

    >
    > My question wasn't about "delete" or "new". My question was if I am
    > responsible for deallocating the pointer provided by a certain
    > function. I wasn't aware that that particular function,
    > gethostbyname(), isn't in the C standard. Regardless, it is still C
    > syntax, compiled by a C compiler. I will save future (read: all)
    > questions for a more appropriate newsgroup. Sorry you felt the need
    > to plonk me.


    When you provided example code that could not be C (even though you
    say that you compile it with a C compiler) and stated that
    > I am under the impression that you don't delete anything unless you
    > personally "new'ed" it. Is this theory correct in this situation?

    you took the question out of the realm of the C language.

    How can we correctly answer the (implied) question of "Is the theory
    that you don't delete anything unless you personally 'new'ed it?" when
    the C language does not recognize the concept of "new"ing anything,
    nor of "delete"ing anything? You are asking a question (apparently)
    about the C++ language, and the responsibility of a C++ programmer to
    write correct C++ programs. That question we cannot answer.

    Had you asked
    "Is the theory that you don't free() anyting unless you've personally
    malloc()ed (or calloc()ed or realloc()ed) it?"
    then we could have answered, for your question would be answerable
    within the confines of the C language and best-practices of C
    programming.

    Just so you know...
     
    Lew Pitcher, Dec 6, 2007
    #11
  12. aj

    John Gordon Guest

    In <> aj <> writes:

    > As usual, you guys are no help, just sticklers for details.


    One would infer that when you have the flu, you go to your local grocery
    store and ask a stockboy what to do about it, and are offended when he
    suggests you ask a doctor.

    --
    John Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
    B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
    -- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"
     
    John Gordon, Dec 6, 2007
    #12
  13. aj

    aj Guest

    On Dec 6, 3:22 pm, Lew Pitcher <> wrote:
    > On Dec 6, 2:59 pm, aj <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Dec 6, 2:39 pm, "Joachim Schmitz" <>
    > > wrote:

    >
    > > > "aj" <> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:-ps.com...> On Dec 6, 2:14 pm, Lew Pitcher <> wrote:
    > > > >> On Dec 6, 1:36 pm, aj <> wrote:
    > > > ...
    > > > > As usual, you guys are no help, just sticklers for details.

    >
    > > > > Thanks for the non-help.

    >
    > > > And you believe that this statement helps in getting helped? I guess this
    > > > just helps in getting you plonked...

    >
    > > > You've been given all help there is, within topicalitiy of this group, which
    > > > in this case it pointing you to the groups where you might find help

    >
    > > > Bye, Jojo

    >
    > > My question wasn't about "delete" or "new". My question was if I am
    > > responsible for deallocating the pointer provided by a certain
    > > function. I wasn't aware that that particular function,
    > > gethostbyname(), isn't in the C standard. Regardless, it is still C
    > > syntax, compiled by a C compiler. I will save future (read: all)
    > > questions for a more appropriate newsgroup. Sorry you felt the need
    > > to plonk me.

    >
    > When you provided example code that could not be C (even though you
    > say that you compile it with a C compiler) and stated that> I am under the impression that you don't delete anything unless you
    > > personally "new'ed" it. Is this theory correct in this situation?

    >
    > you took the question out of the realm of the C language.
    >
    > How can we correctly answer the (implied) question of "Is the theory
    > that you don't delete anything unless you personally 'new'ed it?" when
    > the C language does not recognize the concept of "new"ing anything,
    > nor of "delete"ing anything? You are asking a question (apparently)
    > about the C++ language, and the responsibility of a C++ programmer to
    > write correct C++ programs. That question we cannot answer.
    >
    > Had you asked
    > "Is the theory that you don't free() anyting unless you've personally
    > malloc()ed (or calloc()ed or realloc()ed) it?"
    > then we could have answered, for your question would be answerable
    > within the confines of the C language and best-practices of C
    > programming.
    >
    > Just so you know...- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Lew,

    I understand your point. You are right, the sample program I
    provided is not pure C. I should have removed the "delete" call prior
    to posting, and should have rephrased the question to be more C'ish.
    That being said, I have come to conclusion that I am not responsible
    for the resulting memory, and have removed the delete call.

    Thanks,
    AJ
     
    aj, Dec 6, 2007
    #13
  14. aj

    aj Guest

    On Dec 6, 3:25 pm, John Gordon <> wrote:
    > In <> aj <> writes:
    >
    > > As usual, you guys are no help, just sticklers for details.

    >
    > One would infer that when you have the flu, you go to your local grocery
    > store and ask a stockboy what to do about it, and are offended when he
    > suggests you ask a doctor.
    >
    > --
    > John Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
    > B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
    > -- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"


    Acknowledged. Except you guys aren't stockboys. Stockboys don't know
    what to do about the flu. You hardened C types, however, have the
    knowledge to provide insight into my dilemna, so I dismiss your
    analogy ;) !
     
    aj, Dec 6, 2007
    #14
  15. aj

    Flash Gordon Guest

    aj wrote, On 06/12/07 19:59:
    > On Dec 6, 2:39 pm, "Joachim Schmitz" <>
    > wrote:
    >> "aj" <> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:...> On Dec 6, 2:14 pm, Lew Pitcher <> wrote:
    >>>> On Dec 6, 1:36 pm, aj <> wrote:

    >> ...
    >>> As usual, you guys are no help, just sticklers for details.
    >>> Thanks for the non-help.

    >> And you believe that this statement helps in getting helped? I guess this
    >> just helps in getting you plonked...
    >>
    >> You've been given all help there is, within topicalitiy of this group, which
    >> in this case it pointing you to the groups where you might find help
    >>
    >> Bye, Jojo

    >
    > My question wasn't about "delete" or "new".


    Your code used delete and your question mentioned them, and they are
    enough to show that your code is NOT C code.

    > My question was if I am
    > responsible for deallocating the pointer provided by a certain
    > function. I wasn't aware that that particular function,
    > gethostbyname(), isn't in the C standard.


    That is almost forgiveable, but basic research (i.e. reading the man
    page since you mentioned this was a problem on Linux) would have shown
    you that it is not standard C.

    > Regardless, it is still C
    > syntax, compiled by a C compiler.


    Any C compiler when operating as a C compiler would have rejected your
    code because it was not C code. As you were told new and delete are not
    part of C.

    > I will save future (read: all)
    > questions for a more appropriate newsgroup. Sorry you felt the need
    > to plonk me.


    Well, you've saved me from having to plonk you. Had I seen this post
    earlier I would not have bothered with the post telling you the correct
    group to ask in.
    --
    Flash Gordon
     
    Flash Gordon, Dec 6, 2007
    #15
  16. aj

    Lew Pitcher Guest

    On Dec 6, 3:25 pm, aj <> wrote:
    > On Dec 6, 3:22 pm, Lew Pitcher <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Dec 6, 2:59 pm, aj <> wrote:

    >
    > > > On Dec 6, 2:39 pm, "Joachim Schmitz" <>
    > > > wrote:

    >
    > > > > "aj" <> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:-ps.com...> On Dec 6, 2:14 pm, Lew Pitcher <> wrote:
    > > > > >> On Dec 6, 1:36 pm, aj <> wrote:
    > > > > ...
    > > > > > As usual, you guys are no help, just sticklers for details.

    >
    > > > > > Thanks for the non-help.

    >
    > > > > And you believe that this statement helps in getting helped? I guess this
    > > > > just helps in getting you plonked...

    >
    > > > > You've been given all help there is, within topicalitiy of this group, which
    > > > > in this case it pointing you to the groups where you might find help

    >
    > > > > Bye, Jojo

    >
    > > > My question wasn't about "delete" or "new". My question was if I am
    > > > responsible for deallocating the pointer provided by a certain
    > > > function. I wasn't aware that that particular function,
    > > > gethostbyname(), isn't in the C standard. Regardless, it is still C
    > > > syntax, compiled by a C compiler. I will save future (read: all)
    > > > questions for a more appropriate newsgroup. Sorry you felt the need
    > > > to plonk me.

    >
    > > When you provided example code that could not be C (even though you
    > > say that you compile it with a C compiler) and stated that> I am under the impression that you don't delete anything unless you
    > > > personally "new'ed" it. Is this theory correct in this situation?

    >
    > > you took the question out of the realm of the C language.

    >
    > > How can we correctly answer the (implied) question of "Is the theory
    > > that you don't delete anything unless you personally 'new'ed it?" when
    > > the C language does not recognize the concept of "new"ing anything,
    > > nor of "delete"ing anything? You are asking a question (apparently)
    > > about the C++ language, and the responsibility of a C++ programmer to
    > > write correct C++ programs. That question we cannot answer.

    >
    > > Had you asked
    > > "Is the theory that you don't free() anyting unless you've personally
    > > malloc()ed (or calloc()ed or realloc()ed) it?"
    > > then we could have answered, for your question would be answerable
    > > within the confines of the C language and best-practices of C
    > > programming.

    >
    > > Just so you know...- Hide quoted text -

    >
    > > - Show quoted text -

    >
    > Lew,
    >
    > I understand your point. You are right, the sample program I
    > provided is not pure C. I should have removed the "delete" call prior
    > to posting, and should have rephrased the question to be more C'ish.
    > That being said, I have come to conclusion that I am not responsible
    > for the resulting memory, and have removed the delete call.


    As a rule of thumb, you are responsible for deallocating any object
    that you dynamically allocate through the malloc() tools. However, in
    C (especially in many C standard and 3rd-party library functions, the
    opposite is not true: if the dynamic object was allocated elsewhere,
    it /may/ be your responsibility to free() it at the appropriate place.

    Some functions return "dynamic" objects that are allocated as static
    variables within the function. From the outside (the caller's POV)
    there is no way to distinguish these objects from dynamic objects that
    are allocated using malloc() within the called function. For
    malloc()ed objects, the caller is often responsible for free()ing the
    memory, but for static objects, the caller *must not* free() the
    memory. You have to read the documentation on the function that you
    are calling, and find out which is expected of you.

    Think of this example...

    char * dyn_A(void)
    {
    static char array[] = "Do not free()";
    return array;
    }

    char * dyn_B(void)
    {
    return malloc(4);
    }

    void MyFunc(void)
    {
    char *objA, *objB;

    objA = dyn_A();
    objB = dyn_B();

    /* OK, do I free() objA? How about objB? How does MyFunc() know?
    */

    }
     
    Lew Pitcher, Dec 6, 2007
    #16
  17. aj

    Al Balmer Guest

    On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 12:25:42 -0800 (PST), aj <> wrote:

    >That being said, I have come to conclusion that I am not responsible
    >for the resulting memory, and have removed the delete call.


    Usually, it's not good or necessary to guess about this sort of thing.
    The documentation for the function call should tell you whether it is
    your responsibility to free the memory.

    Another pitfall - some functions might provide a pointer to static
    data, which will be overwritten on the next call. In this case, you
    need to allocate memory yourself, copy the data, and free the memory
    when you're done.

    --
    Al Balmer
    Sun City, AZ
     
    Al Balmer, Dec 6, 2007
    #17
  18. aj

    Guest

    aj wrote:
    > On Dec 6, 3:25 pm, John Gordon <> wrote:
    > > In <> aj <> writes:
    > >
    > > > As usual, you guys are no help, just sticklers for details.

    > >
    > > One would infer that when you have the flu, you go to your local grocery
    > > store and ask a stockboy what to do about it, and are offended when he
    > > suggests you ask a doctor.

    ....
    > Acknowledged. Except you guys aren't stockboys. Stockboys don't know
    > what to do about the flu. You hardened C types, however, have the
    > knowledge to provide insight into my dilemna, so I dismiss your
    > analogy ;) !


    Just because the stockboy works with food, would you go to him for
    advice about how to grow a cucumber? He might happen to know, but
    would you go out of your way to pose the question to the stockboy
    rather than to a gardner or a farmer?

    Just because we're C experts doesn't mean we know a lot about every
    library written with a C interface. When you have a question about a
    library which contains a function named gethostbyname(), you should
    pose your questions in a forum devoted to that library.

    Many of us have used that library; some are even familiar with that
    particular function (not including me), but you'll get a lot more help
    in the right forum than in this one.
     
    , Dec 6, 2007
    #18
  19. aj

    Default User Guest

    Lew Pitcher wrote:

    > Sorry, but C does not have
    > - a keyword called "delete",
    > - a keyword called "new"
    > - a standard function called gethostbyname()
    > - a standard struture called hostent


    > You probably want to discuss this topic in comp.lang.c++


    As C++ is missing items 3 and 4, that seems unlikely.



    Brian
     
    Default User, Dec 6, 2007
    #19
  20. aj

    Default User Guest

    aj wrote:


    > As usual, you guys are no help, just sticklers for details.


    Another idiot to plonk.




    Brian
     
    Default User, Dec 6, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bill

    GetHostByName in IIS

    Bill, Aug 2, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    457
  2. Eric Brunel
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,475
    Eric Brunel
    Oct 27, 2003
  3. Fortepianissimo

    timeout in socket.gethostbyname()?

    Fortepianissimo, Dec 7, 2003, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,391
    Fortepianissimo
    Dec 8, 2003
  4. Frank Miles
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    853
    George Kinney
    Jul 27, 2004
  5. Andrew DeFaria

    If gethostbyname fails it never recovers

    Andrew DeFaria, Oct 5, 2006, in forum: Perl
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,327
    Andrew DeFaria
    Oct 6, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page