Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:18:08 -0500
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	Cygwin-Developers <cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
Subject:	Re: [PORTS] Re: ps and psql from PostgreSQL not working with cygwin-1.1.5-2
Message-ID:	<20001108161808.A17935@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	Cygwin-Developers <cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
References:	<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> <20001108153915 DOT F458 AT dothill DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.6i
In-Reply-To:	<20001108153915.F458@dothill.com>; from Jason.Tishler@dothill.com on Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 03:39:15PM -0500

On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 03:39:15PM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 08:48:35AM +0000, Pete Forman wrote:
>> 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.
>>   Subsequent calls to connect( ) for the same socket, before the
>>   connection is established, shall fail and set errno to [EALREADY].
>
>If we can agree that connect() should behave as above, then I'm willing to
>provide a patch to make it so.  Do we?

Corinna just checked something in today.  Does it solve the problem?

cgf

- Raw text -