Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:14:07 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: recv(..., MSG_PEEK) (was Re: fetchmail 5.9.8 and maildrop 1.3.7)
Message-ID: <20020305101407.N13590@cygbert.vinschen.de>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20020302004512 DOT A1936 AT LOKI> <20020302160332 DOT GA1976 AT hp DOT com> <20020302221220 DOT A4040 AT LOKI> <20020303024718 DOT GB2116 AT hp DOT com> <20020303155818 DOT A3120 AT LOKI> <20020304155650 DOT GA1424 AT hp DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20020304155650.GA1424@hp.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i

On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 10:56:50AM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote:
> Corinna,
> 
> On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 03:58:18PM +0000, Rui Carmo wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 09:47:19PM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote:
> > > > I was under the impression that recv() bugs had been twiddled in
> > > > 1.3.10... Or did the changes in recv() not address MSG_PEEK?
> > > 
> > > Hmm, I will look into this.  It would be great if my patch just became
> > > obsolete.
> > 
> > The release notes (post by Cristopher:
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2002-02/msg01350.html) mention recv()
> > explicitly:
> > 
> > > - Implement socket read/write using recv/send. (corinna)
> > 
> > Bit vague, though, so I don't know if Corinna tackled the MSG_PEEK
> > issue.
> 
> Could you comment as to whether or not the above changes would have any
> positive affects on the following?
> 
>     http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2001-08/msg00628.html

No.  The above change is sort of a code cleanup.  I don't know how
we could workaround that Winsock problem in Cygwin.  It doesn't know
from where you got the `n' parameter and it's perfectly legal for
a read() call to return a number of bytes < n.

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT 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/