Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 20:53:37 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: another poll() patch Message-ID: <20011017205337.C21217@cygbert.vinschen.de> Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <20011017101247.A19306@perf.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20011017101247.A19306@perf.inria.fr>; from Frederic.Devernay@sophia.inria.fr on Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 10:12:47AM +0200 On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 10:12:47AM +0200, Frederic Devernay wrote: > Hello, > > Jason's patch > (http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2001-q3/msg00109.html) > had the following problems: > - it used FD_ISSET with a fd that could possibly be completely out of > range... Sun RPC for example uses fd=-1 in its poll() calls (which > made my server crash when the client quits). > - even when there's _some_ invalid fds, cygwin_select() should be > called. But it should not be called if _all_ are invalid. > - the return value from cygwin_select should not be modified if it's > negative (can it be negative?). > - In brief, it only worked if all fds were valid, or if all were > invalid but within the valid range. Thanks for the patch. Since it's short enough to be treated as "non-significant" in terms of size, I checked it in. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc. -- 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/