Mail Archives: cygwin/2011/03/23/16:15:02
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 04:38:15PM +0000, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>On 23/03/2011 15:00, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:31:46AM +0000, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>>> On 22/03/2011 20:08, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 08:53:34PM +0100, V??clav Haisman wrote:
>>>>> Jon TURNEY wrote, On 22.3.2011 20:29:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> python seems to be built with the default value of FD_SETSIZE, which is
>>>>>> only 64 on cygwin.
>>>>> Is this not because of the inherent limitation of
>>>>> WaitForMultipleObjects() call?
>>>>
>>>> Yep. Without a rewrite, it's a hard limit to Cygwin's select().
>>>
>>> Please read my email more closely. I am not saying "python select() is
>>> limited to waiting on 64 fds or less", I am saying "python select() is
>>> limited to waiting on fd which are less than 64"
>>
>> I forgot to add one bit of data. Unless you go out of your way to
>> change it, Cygwin's select can't wait for an fd > 63. It's basically a
>> bit mask. So, there are two limitations: 1) the number of handles that
>> you can wait for with WaitForMultipleObjects() and 2) the size of
>> Cygwin's fd_set.
>
>Yes, I know fd_set is implemented as a bitmap. It's size is controlled by
>FD_SETSIZE. That is the whole point of the patch in the original mail.
I actually did see that last night and then promptly forgot it.
I assume you know that this greately increases the likelihood that
select() will fail with an EINVAL. Maybe python somehow deals
gracefully with that.
cgf
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -