Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 23:52:16 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <vinschen AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: serious problem with cygwin and winsock?
Message-ID: <20010822235216.A17930@cygbert.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygdev <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20010821221717 DOT A27371 AT redhat DOT com> <20010822090825 DOT H17561 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20010822175816 DOT A16265 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20010822125201 DOT A301 AT redhat DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20010822125201.A301@redhat.com>; from cgf@redhat.com on Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 12:52:01PM -0400

On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 12:52:01PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 05:58:16PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 09:08:25AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> I looked into net.cc and there are only a hand full of functions concerned:
> >> 
> >> cygwin_inet_ntoa
> >> cygwin_getprotobyname
> >> cygwin_getprotobynumber
> >> cygwin_getservbyname
> >> cygwin_getservbyport
> >> cygwin_gethostbyname
> >> cygwin_gethostbyaddr
> >> 
> >> I will add static buffers or appropriate allocation functions in the
> >> next days. Fortunately these functions are defined so that the
> >> allocated structure is recycled on the next call by the same process...
> >
> >I checked in a fix half an hour ago. All seven functions are now
> >using a local buffer which gets allocated on demand.
> 
> Hmm.  This is basically what I was thinking of but it doesn't look like
> this is a thread-safe implementation.

Ok, I just checked in a (hopefully) thread safe version.

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.