Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: > Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, perhaps the dup() thing > should be eliminated. The justification for it seems less than clear, > and apparently it causes some problems.
I've just found another problem while investigating the cause of some sporadic Windows failures: http://www.python.org/dev/buildbot/builders/x86%20XP-4% 203.1/builds/718/steps/test/logs/stdio I've reproduced it on an XP VM and the explanation is that, sometimes, just after a dup() of a socket, calling getpeername() on the child socket fails (while getpeername() on the parent succeeds). It seems very timing-sensitive: if I insert enough code after the dup(), the call to getpeername() succeeds. I will fix the buildbot issue by using a different logic (simply, call getpeername() on the parent rather than the child), but this seems to confirms that dup() may not be a good idea. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue8524> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
