On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 01:08:06PM -0400, Jim Marshall wrote:
> Victor Duchovni wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 11:48:42PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> >
> >>> /* This is just one of the tests I have tried */
> >>> FD_ZERO(&rfds);
> >>> FD_SET(acceptSock, &rfds);
> >>> FD_ZERO(&wfds);
> >>> FD_SET(acceptSock, &wfds);
> >>> FD_ZERO(&rfds);
> >>> FD_SET(acceptSock, &efds);
> >>> do {
> >>> /* see if we have any activity on the socket */
> >>> waitVal = select(acceptSock, &rfds, &wfds, &efds, &tv);
> >>What happens when you pass 'select' fd sets that make sense and set the
> >>first parameter appropriately?
> >
> >i.e. (acceptSock + 1) not (acceptSock).
> >
> Pardon my ignorance, but why do you need to specify acceptSock+1? I
> tried this and it fixed the problem, but I don't understand why.
This is described in the select() manpage.
--
Viktor.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
