Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:16:46 -0800 (PST) From: "Peter A. Castro" To: cygwin@cygwin.com cc: Peter Stephens Subject: RE: recv and errno during a connection reset/closed by peert In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-IsSubscribed: yes On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Brian Ford wrote: > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Peter Stephens wrote: > >> I have thought about your suggestion and it makes a lot of sense. >> >> It seems like your suggestion would be very portable. A good suggestion and >> the most likely route for me at this point. > > Not to me. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems you are going to a > lot of effort to poorly recreate poll/select? Why? If you are doing sequential, non multi-plexed, reads why do poll or select? Sitting in read is more optimal and the read should return either data or an error. The flaw in recv is that it returns a non-error non-data status. Perhaps it would be better to switch to using read() instead of recv? > This is really getting off-topic, though. Yes. Isn't it fun ?-) > -- > Brian Ford -- Peter A. Castro or "Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood -- 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/