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:	Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:54:51 -0500
From:	Jason Tishler <Jason DOT Tishler AT dothill DOT com>
To:	cygwin <cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, 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:	<20001108165451.B324@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> <20001106163707 DOT A388 AT dothill DOT com> <14855 DOT 49635 DOT 565990 DOT 716645 AT kryten DOT bedford DOT waii DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To:	<14855.49635.565990.716645@kryten.bedford.waii.com>; from gsez020@kryten.bedford.waii.com on Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 08:48:35AM +0000
Organization:	Dot Hill Systems Corp.

On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 08:48:35AM +0000, Pete Forman wrote:
> Jason Tishler writes:
>  > Sorry for not letting this thread die...

I will let it die now...

>  > 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()?
> 
> According to POSIX, connect() should never set errno to EAGAIN or
> EWOULDBLOCK.  (Those codes are appropriate for accept().)
> 
>   If the connection cannot be established immediately and O_NONBLOCK
>   is set for the file descriptor for the socket, connect( ) shall fail
>   and set errno to [EINPROGRESS], but the connection request shall not
>   be aborted, and the connection shall be established asynchronously.

I'm very happy to report that Cygwin 1.1.5 has changed to implement the
above.

Thanks to all involved for their help.

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 -