On Aug 12 14:48, Jon TURNEY wrote: > On 12/08/2009 13:54, Jon TURNEY wrote: >> Hmmm... but if it's really the size of the sockname argument which is >> causing the accept() to fail, this would be a bug in cygwin's accept() >> implementation, as it's supposed to truncate the data written to the >> sockname, rather than fail if it won't fit [1]. If that actually is the >> case, since we don't actually use the peer address here, the code as >> stands is correct (if a little odd). >> >> I suppose I need to write a small test case to look at this... >> >> [1] http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/accept.html > > A couple of small programs which hopefully demonstrate this problem. > > (As is, the connection fails, but uncommenting the alternate definition > of cliaddr in listener.c allows it to work) > > I'd hazard a guess that perhaps this is because the underlying winsock > accept() doesn't have this truncate behaviour and considers a too-small > address_len an error.
Thanks for the testcase! This confirms what I wrote about WinSock in http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-xfree/2009-08/msg00029.html Now for the patch to workaround that problem... Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
