On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 08:58:09PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> 2) The reason the sockets persist is that they are
> non-blocking. On Win95/98/ME close() doesn't work
> correctly for non-blocking sockets, as reported in
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2002-q2/msg00095.html
>
> The p
At 10:32 AM 4/30/2002 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> Of course we are then exposed to the issue that Cygwin was trying
>> to fix by setting linger to On, i.e. the case of a process
>> exiting just after the close(). Fortunately sockets are usually
>
>...why cant we keep that, i. e.
>
> If t
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 07:32:23AM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> At 10:32 AM 4/30/2002 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> Of course we are then exposed to the issue that Cygwin was trying
> >> to fix by setting linger to On, i.e. the case of a process
> >> exiting just after the close(). For
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> That makes sense... but doesn't that again break something else?
What it might break is the case for which linger was added in the first
place, i.e. processes terminating and Windows flushing their outgoing
packet queue (in the case of slow connections), as opposed
I finally had some time to review this today and I am still not
completely convinced that this patch is correct.
If we just avoid setting up the destructor calls using atexit then the
destructors will only run once. So, in the normal case, the destructor
will run after much cleanup has occurred
At 10:12 AM 4/30/2002 -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>Now I have never observed this myself, and don't have a strong opinion.
>Do we have a reproducible case to understand exactly what's going on?
I found the nice example by Jonathan Kammen, using socketpair()
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2001-07
