Subject: Re: 1.5.9-1: socket() appears NOT to be thread-safe
From: "Enzo Michelangeli" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "\"Brian Ford\"" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:03:23 +0800

I wrote:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Enzo Michelangeli" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: ""Brian Ford"" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: 1.5.9-1: socket() appears NOT to be thread-safe

[...]
> By the way, even in case of no error the socket calls return the same
> value of fd. Is this OK??

Please ignore the two lines above: I forgot to remove them after fixing
the bug that had prompted me to write them in first place :-) The fd are
obviously different, as shown in the sample output.

Enzo

P.S. By the way, Corinna: couldn't I just put my gethostbyname_r() in the
public domain, rather than going through the bureaucratic chore of the
copyright assignment? Also because I feel that implementing it through
mutex-protection of gethostbyname(), as I did, is just a quick hack, as it
unnecessarily blocks other threads that could access the name server in
parallel (with separate network I/O and properly re-entrant code). It may
help other implementors to solve an urgent problem, but I don't think it
should be released as part of the Cygwin code.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/