From: Jason McIntyre <jmc@kerhand.co.uk>
Subject: Re: inet_addr(3) STANDARDS
To: tech@openbsd.org
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2024 12:12:32 +0000

i think that's correct, yes.
jmc

On 5 March 2024 11:26:00 GMT, "Anthony J. Bentley" <bentley@openbsd.org> wrote:
>It's inet_ntoa, not inet_aton, that conforms to POSIX, right?
>Or am I missing something?
>
>https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/inet_addr.html
>
>
>Index: inet_addr.3
>===================================================================
>RCS file: /cvs/src/lib/libc/net/inet_addr.3,v
>retrieving revision 1.6
>diff -u -p -r1.6 inet_addr.3
>--- inet_addr.3	11 Sep 2022 06:38:10 -0000	1.6
>+++ inet_addr.3	5 Mar 2024 11:20:18 -0000
>@@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ otherwise, the number is interpreted as 
> The
> .Nm inet_addr
> and
>-.Nm inet_aton
>+.Nm inet_ntoa
> functions conform to
> .St -p1003.1-2008 .
> .Sh HISTORY
>