Mail Archives: cygwin/2013/03/08/10:10:08
On Mar 8 16:44, Noel Grandin wrote:
> On 2013-03-08 16:37, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Mar 8 16:23, Noel Grandin wrote:
> >>On 2013-03-08 15:29, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>>You can call connect on both sides. But ultimately you're right, I
> >>>guess. I never thought about it that way, and it seems nobody used
> >>>AF_LOCAL datagrams so far. Weird. The problem is that the
> >>>underlying protocol is AF_INET because Windows doesn't support
> >>>AF_LOCAL.
> >>If you're using UDP as your underlying protocol, UDP already
> >>contains a port you can reply to.
> >Yes, but the port isn't available to the application which opened a
> >AF_LOCAL connection. If recvfrom returns an AF_INET name, it's rather
> >tricky to convert it into an AF_LOCAL name for a subsequent sendto call.
> >
> >[...time passes...]
> >
> >Or... are you suggesting that recvfrom returns some kind of fake AF_LOCAL
> >name, which can be converted back to AF_INET by sendto on the fly?
>
> Yup, sorry, friday afternoon, not being very good with the explaining thing.
>
> It's obviously a localhost connection, so we only need a way of
> stashing and retrieving the port number, not the host part.
Right. That sounds like a reasonable workaround. After all, the sender
shouldn't care for the real filename backing the peer socket, it just
needs something looking like a AF_LOCAL record to address the peer socket
reliably.
I think about it, but this will probably not make it into 1.7.18
anymore.
Thanks for the hint,
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
--
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 -