compile error on Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther) and the patch

[js]

Isn't here a good place to submit a patch?
If so, could you lead me to the right place please?

On 10/21/07, js <ebgssth at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Compiling memcached(svn trunk ver) failed with these errors.
>
> $ make
> make  all-recursive
> Making all in doc
> make[2]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> source='memcached.c' object='memcached.o' libtool=no \
> depfile='.deps/memcached.Po' tmpdepfile='.deps/memcached.TPo' \
> depmode=gcc3 /bin/sh ./depcomp \
> gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.   -I/opt/local/include   -g -O2 -c
> `test -f 'memcached.c' || echo './'`memcached.c
> memcached.c: In function `add_msghdr':
> memcached.c:224: warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type
> memcached.c: In function `add_iov':
> memcached.c:584: error: `IOV_MAX' undeclared (first use in this function)
> memcached.c:584: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
> memcached.c:584: error: for each function it appears in.)
> make[2]: *** [memcached.o] Error 1
> make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> make: *** [all] Error 2
>
> This is because OS X 10.3, unlike 10.4, doesn't have IOV_MAX in limits.h.
> Below is my patch.
>
> Index: memcached.c
> ===================================================================
> --- memcached.c (revision 629)
> +++ memcached.c (working copy)
> @@ -52,9 +52,9 @@
>  #endif
>  #endif
>
> -/* FreeBSD 4.x doesn't have IOV_MAX exposed. */
> +/* FreeBSD 4.x and old OSX don't have IOV_MAX exposed. */
>  #ifndef IOV_MAX
> -#if defined(__FreeBSD__)
> +#if defined(__FreeBSD__) || defined(__APPLE__)
>  # define IOV_MAX 1024
>  #endif
>  #endif
>
> __APPLE__is the flag for darwin.
> http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&q=+lang:c+darwin-c.c+__APPLE__+show:jXyBUL4_D4k:I24eDuyXrWQ:BPY6ixvGT5I&sa=N&cd=1&ct=rc&cs_p=http://gcc.fyxm.net/prerelease-4.1.2-20070128/gcc-core-4.1.2-20070128.tar.bz2&cs_f=gcc-4.1.2-20070128/gcc/config/darwin-c.c#first
>
> I don't know whether this is right fix or not
> so could someone please review this patch and accept this or write better patch?
>
> Thank you in advance.
>