On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 12:19:49PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: > Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > How can you second that 100% and then talk about how people have to > > change ther code to accomodate cygwin? > I second 100% that it's best to find a solution that avoids the MS > bug without requiring any change from Unix. > Meanwhile nobody "has to" do anything as a result of including > my proposal. > I hope this discussion will generate better approaches.
I think there's only one approach which would allow applications to run without special Cygwin patches. When duplicating a socket, Cygwin needs to know the parent-child relationship between the sockets. When closing a socket, the DLL has to check, if there's still a child socket left open. If so, the socket isn't closed but moved into a "still-to-close" queue (like the delqueue) until all child sockets are closed. The same for the application itself. If exit() has been called, Cygwin has to keep the application in a zombie-like state until the child sockets have been closed. The problem is that this requires a parent-child communication which isn't implemented yet. This would be a job for the Cygwin daemon. Does that invalidate Pierre's approach? I don't think so. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
