Compiling queryperf on Mac OS X Leopard

Merul Patel merul.patel at
Fri May 30 10:29:08 UTC 2008


BIND9 seems to build fine on my Mac OS X 10.5.3 box, but I'm unable to  
build queryperf, and there's little in the README to assist. The  
utility compiles fine on Debian Etch, so it's clearly something that  
the configure script is/isn't picking up about the Mac box.

./configure yields:

checking for gcc... gcc
checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out
checking whether the C compiler works... yes
checking whether we are cross compiling... no
checking for suffix of executables...
checking for suffix of object files... o
checking whether we are using the GNU C compiler... yes
checking whether gcc accepts -g... yes
checking for gcc option to accept ISO C89... none needed
checking for library containing res_mkquery... none required
checking for library containing __res_mkquery... no
checking for socket in -lsocket... no
checking for inet_ntoa in -lnsl... no
checking for gethostbyname2... yes
checking for getaddrinfo... yes
checking for getnameinfo... yes
checking for socklen_t... yes
checking for sa_len... yes
configure: creating ./config.status
config.status: creating Makefile
config.status: creating config.h
config.status: config.h is unchanged

But then make reports:

gcc  -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -c queryperf.c
queryperf.c: In function ‘dispatch_query’:
queryperf.c:1369: error: ‘PACKETSZ’ undeclared (first use in this  
queryperf.c:1369: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only  
queryperf.c:1369: error: for each function it appears in.)
queryperf.c:1376: error: ‘QUERY’ undeclared (first use in this function)
queryperf.c:1376: error: ‘C_IN’ undeclared (first use in this function)
queryperf.c:1369: error: storage size of ‘packet_buffer’ isn’t known
queryperf.c: In function ‘process_single_response’:
queryperf.c:1610: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 6 of  
‘recvfrom’ differ in signedness
make: *** [queryperf.o] Error 1

Any advice would be most appreciated.


MerulFrom bortzmeyer at  Fri May 30 11:48:29 2008
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list bind-users); Fri, 30 May 2008 11:48:29 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: <bortzmeyer at>
X-Original-To: bind-users at
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::1c])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK))
	by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1024110E470
	for <bind-users at>; Fri, 30 May 2008 11:48:29 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bortzmeyer at
Received: from ( [])
	by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEACE114027
	for <bind-users at>; Fri, 30 May 2008 11:48:26 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bortzmeyer at
Received: from (localhost [])
	by (Postfix) with SMTP id EC83B1C0151;
	Fri, 30 May 2008 13:48:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( [])
	by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E729F1C014B;
	Fri, 30 May 2008 13:48:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( [])
	by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3DB658EBEA;
	Fri, 30 May 2008 13:48:25 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 13:48:25 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at>
To: Ezequiel Aguerre <ezeaguerrelistas at>
Cc: bind-users at
Subject: Re: Some domains don't resolve.
Message-ID: <20080530114825.GA17754 at>
References: <8e60f2200805300027gbf06eb0r5c3344d67b5b1b9a at>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8e60f2200805300027gbf06eb0r5c3344d67b5b1b9a at>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux lenny/sid
X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.24-1-686 i686
Organization: NIC France
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=ham version=3.2.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01) on
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: bind-users-bounce at
Errors-to: bind-users-bounce at
Precedence: bulk
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:bind-users-request at>
List-Id: <>
X-List-ID: <>

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 04:27:54AM -0300,
 Ezequiel Aguerre <ezeaguerrelistas at> wrote 
 a message of 246 lines which said:

> I'll start with my configuration: I have a router doing NAT, 

NAT is already a big problem in itself.

>     forwarders {
>     };

Who is The NAT router? Do you control it? Can you vouch
for it? (Most CPE middleboxes are lousy.)

I suggest to not use this sort of device as a forwarder. 

> $ host

dig is much better for debugging

> 30-May-2008 03:50:37.922 FORMERR resolving '':

Probably because the stupide and broken router/firewall had a problem
with EDNS0 packets.

> the "Additional records" section of the
> package (as shown by Wireshark) contains the following line:
> <Root>: type OPT

> Why would I want the root servers? I already have them in the "hint"
> file.

BIND nevertheless check them at startup (because hints file tend to be
obsolete). This is called "priming".

More information about the bind-users mailing list