Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 12:38:57 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Debugging problem in peek_pipe in select.cc Message-ID: <20011108123857.H2730@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com References: <20011108155542 DOT 19905 DOT qmail AT lizard DOT curl DOT com> <20011108120956 DOT A2730 AT redhat DOT com> <20011108172449 DOT 22627 DOT qmail AT lizard DOT curl DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20011108172449.22627.qmail@lizard.curl.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 12:24:49PM -0500, Jonathan Kamens wrote: >> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 12:09:56 -0500 >> From: Christopher Faylor >> >> The point of my addition of a mutex to peek_pipe was to prevent occurrences >> of PeekNamedPipe blocking, actually. It can block in pathological situations >> when another thread/process is doing a blocking read. > >Ah, so the MSDN documentation is wrong. > >Imagine my surprise :-). > >Is it actually documented somewhere else, where I didn't look, that >PeekNamedPipe can block, or did you just have to figure this out by >hard experience? I figured it out by hard experience and then eventually found it mentioned somewhere in the bowels of MSDN. Needless to say, I was very surprised. cgf