Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:36:23 -0500 (EST)
From:	David E Euresti <davie AT MIT DOT EDU>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	Re: sendto bug
Message-ID:	<Pine.GSO.4.30L.0203291509340.24339-100000@magic-pi-ball.mit.edu>
MIME-Version:	1.0

Actually the Single UNIX Specification says:

	If the socket is connectionless-mode, the message will be sent to
	the address specified by dest_addr. If the socket is
	connection-mode, dest_addr is ignored.

And since sendto calls either WSASendTo or winsock 1 sendTo that state:

	Even if the connectionless socket has been previously connected
	using the connect function to a specific address, lpTo overrides
	the destination address for that particular datagram only. On a
	connection-oriented socket, the lpTo and iToLen parameters are
	ignored; in this case, the WSASendTo is equivalent to WSASend.

Therefore there should be no harm in passing in the NULL value to sendto.

David

Quoting cgf:

I don't see anything in the linux man page or the Single UNIX
Specification which indicates that the "to" address can be NULL.

cgf



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -