Re: gethostbyname_r

2005-10-11 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 10:54:32PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >>On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 12:10:57PM -0400, Richard Campbell wrote: >> >>>Brian Ford wrote: >>> >>>>There is almost no need for gethostbyname_r on Cygwin sin

Re: gethostbyname_r

2005-10-11 Thread Gerrit P. Haase
Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 12:10:57PM -0400, Richard Campbell wrote: Brian Ford wrote: There is almost no need for gethostbyname_r on Cygwin since its sole purpose is to create a thread safe interface. In most all cases, Cygwin's gethostbyname is thread safe.

Re: gethostbyname_r

2005-10-11 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 01:35:44PM -0400, Richard Campbell wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >>AFAIK, cygwin's gethostbyname is thread safe in all cases. > >Since I was referencing you for the proposition that it was not thread >safe in the case of resolving a numeric IP, >(http://www.cygwin.com/ml

Re: gethostbyname_r

2005-10-11 Thread Richard Campbell
Christopher Faylor wrote: AFAIK, cygwin's gethostbyname is thread safe in all cases. Since I was referencing you for the proposition that it was not thread safe in the case of resolving a numeric IP, (http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-05/msg00182.html ) I'll certainly defer to you. -Ri

Re: gethostbyname_r

2005-10-11 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 12:10:57PM -0400, Richard Campbell wrote: >Brian Ford wrote: >>There is almost no need for gethostbyname_r on Cygwin since its sole >>purpose is to create a thread safe interface. In most all cases, Cygwin's >>gethostbyname is thread safe. >

Re: gethostbyname_r

2005-10-11 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Oct 11 12:10, Richard Campbell wrote: > Brian Ford wrote: > > > >There is almost no need for gethostbyname_r on Cygwin since its sole > >purpose is to create a thread safe interface. In most all cases, Cygwin's > >gethostbyname is thread safe. > > >

Re: gethostbyname_r

2005-10-11 Thread Richard Campbell
Brian Ford wrote: There is almost no need for gethostbyname_r on Cygwin since its sole purpose is to create a thread safe interface. In most all cases, Cygwin's gethostbyname is thread safe. > > http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-05/msg00202.html 1) Resolving a numeric host is

Re: gethostbyname_r

2005-10-11 Thread Brian Ford
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Jason Pyeron wrote: > On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Oct 11 10:15, Jason Pyeron wrote: > >> I am tring to port an application, but I cant seem to find the glibc2 > >> gethostbyname_r function. > > > > It doesn't

Re: gethostbyname_r

2005-10-11 Thread Jason Pyeron
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Oct 11 10:15, Jason Pyeron wrote: I am tring to port an application, but I cant seem to find the glibc2 gethostbyname_r function. It doesn't exist on Cygwin. so is this the only way to go? has any one verified the code?

Re: gethostbyname_r

2005-10-11 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Oct 11 10:15, Jason Pyeron wrote: > > I am tring to port an application, but I cant seem to find the glibc2 > gethostbyname_r function. > > Does anyone know? It doesn't exist on Cygwin. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin

gethostbyname_r

2005-10-11 Thread Jason Pyeron
I am tring to port an application, but I cant seem to find the glibc2 gethostbyname_r function. Does anyone know? -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - - - Jason Pyeron PD Inc

RE: Quick hack to implement gethostbyname_r() through gethostbyname()+mutex lock

2004-04-15 Thread Dave Korn
> -Original Message- > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor > Sent: 15 April 2004 14:23 > On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 02:02:38PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: > >Ah, but it's not a matter of it having no copyright, but of the > >copyright existing and belonging to the FSF so that the G

Re: Quick hack to implement gethostbyname_r() through gethostbyname()+mutex lock

2004-04-15 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 02:02:38PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >Ah, but it's not a matter of it having no copyright, but of the >copyright existing and belonging to the FSF so that the GPL can be >enforced on the file. If you submit a completely PD bit of source to a >GPL project, other people can tak

Re: Quick hack to implement gethostbyname_r() through gethostbyname()+mutex lock

2004-04-15 Thread Enzo Michelangeli
From: "Dave Korn" To: Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 14:02:38 +0100 Subject: RE: Quick hack to implement gethostbyname_r() through gethostbyname()+mutex lock [...] >> Well, OK, here is the code, hereby placed in the public >> domain. Everybody >> can do with it whatever s/h

RE: Quick hack to implement gethostbyname_r() through gethostbyname()+mutex lock

2004-04-15 Thread Chris January
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf > Of Dave Korn > Sent: 15 April 2004 14:03 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Quick hack to implement gethostbyname_r() through > gethostbyname()+mutex lock > > > > --

RE: Quick hack to implement gethostbyname_r() through gethostbyname()+mutex lock

2004-04-15 Thread Dave Korn
gt; Cc: ""Brian Ford"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 12:03 PM > Subject: Re: 1.5.9-1: socket() appears NOT to be thread-safe > > > P.S. By the way, Corinna: couldn't I just put my > gethostbyname_r() in > > the public dom

Quick hack to implement gethostbyname_r() through gethostbyname()+mutex lock

2004-04-15 Thread Enzo Michelangeli
OT to be thread-safe > P.S. By the way, Corinna: couldn't I just put my gethostbyname_r() in > the public domain, rather than going through the bureaucratic chore of > the copyright assignment? Also because I feel that implementing it > through mutex-protection of gethostbyname(), a