Thomas BERNARD
Thomas BERNARD
I'm not sure it is good to do the "shutdown" in all startup failure case...
https://github.com/miniupnp/miniupnp/blob/master/miniupnpc/include/upnpdev.h#L35 Why do you compile with `-Wpedantic` ??? with C99, `buffer[]` is compiled anyway. Maybe I should add a condition for the C++ version ???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member#Availability
@Slayer95 which value of `__cplusplus` should be tested ?
I guess nobody has tried to build on MacOS for a long long time :) A `CPPFLAGS += -I.` is missing in the Makefile.macosx
I fixed the Makefile.macosx so it build again on my OS X 10.9 which was the system when I first made it work with pf I think. ca0664cbff2ec9915804ea25ea0aabdcefc0a93c / c2d08f6d8cd3a1feef098c9657d9a8161a947e76...
The discovery phase works well, but the root description is missing the `` element. So it is a device offering no service... Strange. I guess no other UPnP software can...
https://upnp.org/specs/arch/UPnP-arch-DeviceArchitecture-v1.0.pdf see page 26 for an example
@leggewie as I said previously, the XML root description of your UPnP device is incorrect. No UPnP client can properly work with it as the informations about services are missing....
@irwir PCP or NAT-PMP support is totally independent from UPnP, I was **not** talking about PCP. Even though PCP could work on this router, it has an invalid **UPnP** root...