X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
	default; b=y6vqbZnoWDVnd1qIEc+TIJuKYc9VmN6REpyjSEExZ6QIg21UBpn2t
	78607vBR2Jk8ygBFmk2Zxp5AQrhMilPgiAdc/bYj61SEWq+80ed1ly/weoIqDqGD
	OEsIhRi9y25S7ZnQNq7YjWEQIvkvt4iTz1vV4Z2GiHujTSTQa+SVXU=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=default;
	 bh=IAoZtK0NMrbLRNcD8MzW7QIMPhE=; b=acRAyNox83YO+ZnIlNZE8tfeYMW/
	FNGnmvY8IIHjtUl2fYR/GufAr38hbZF57G+VyrAeX8BuCrXA+IGwE46hyi5EcaM1
	7xaz6jzhCctzWBqrLFfN6O4E3/irCeJ9mwnulBpvhLv5Fu0M1sNSG1C8wZDvtawi
	fA4rNhQdW7V416A=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-101.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GOOD_FROM_CORINNA_CYGWIN,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Lavrentiev, NLM, ncbi, NCBI
X-HELO: mout.kundenserver.de
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 21:04:54 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: SOCK_NONBLOCK not honored
Message-ID: <20181105200454.GC18379@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <SN6PR09MB3247DE8659997EDB93309403A5CE0@SN6PR09MB3247.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR09MB3247DE8659997EDB93309403A5CE0@SN6PR09MB3247.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)

--PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Nov  1 20:56, Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] via cygwin wrote:
> Hi,
>=20
> Looks like CYGWIN defines but does not honor the SOCK_NONBLOCK flag when =
used with socket(2).
>=20
> (It also defines SOCK_CLOEXEC but I haven't checked whether it is honored=
 -- full disclosure.)
>=20
> Consider the following code:

Spot on, thanks for the testcase.  Neither SOCK_NONBLOCK, nor
SOCK_CLOEXEC worked as expected.  What was I thinking at the time...?

I pushed a patch and I'm just uploading new developer snapshots to
https://cygwin.com/snapshots/ while I'm typing.  Please give them a try.


Thanks,
Corinna

--=20
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Maintainer

--PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=AkVA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr--