Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Mon, 6 Nov 2000 16:37:07 -0500
From:	Jason Tishler <Jason DOT Tishler AT dothill DOT com>
To:	cygwin <cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
Cc:	pgsql-ports AT postgresql DOT org
Subject:	Re: [PORTS] Re: ps and psql from PostgreSQL not working with cygwin-1.1.5-2
Message-ID:	<20001106163707.A388@dothill.com>
References:	<20001029205046 DOT A19137 AT redhat DOT com> <kvd7gh6ngu DOT fsf AT vzell DOT de DOT oracle DOT com> <20001031114831 DOT A27220 AT redhat DOT com> <20001102122634 DOT A211 AT dothill DOT com> <20001103160800 DOT A523 AT dothill DOT com> <20001103163716 DOT A19118 AT redhat DOT com> <20001103171504 DOT A238 AT dothill DOT com> <3A035626 DOT BD9AA64B AT redhat DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To:	<3A035626.BD9AA64B@redhat.com>; from vinschen@redhat.com on Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 01:19:50AM +0100
Organization:	Dot Hill Systems Corp.

Sorry for not letting this thread die...

On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 01:19:50AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> That's the problem. I thought about changing the behaviour of connect
> two weeks ago. I'm not sure if it makes sense to change the error code
> translation table for exactly that reason: Who knows what that would
> break? Perhaps it's better to change only the connect call to return
> EINPROGRESS. On the other hand Winsock seem to have interchanged the
> meaning of WOULDBLOCK and INPROGRESS (by mistake?). Hmmm.

Can some one very knowledgeable with socket programming (hopefully on
many platforms) please help us out?  Should socket clients (e.g., psql)
be expected to test errno for EWOULDBLOCK (a.k.a EAGAIN) when connect()
returns -1?  Or, should cygwin map EWOULDBLOCK to EINPROGRESS, at least
for connect()?

Thanks,
Jason

-- 
Jason Tishler
Director, Software Engineering       Phone: +1 (732) 264-8770 x235
Dot Hill Systems Corporation         Fax:   +1 (732) 264-8798
82 Bethany Road, Suite 7             Email: Jason DOT Tishler AT dothill DOT com
Hazlet, NJ 07730 USA                 WWW:   http://www.dothill.com

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com

- Raw text -