On 10/21/2010 4:05 PM, Todd Walter wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:03:58 +0100
MRAB wrote:
On 21/10/2010 15:57, Todd Walter wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 00:07:58 +0100
MRAB wrote:
[snip]
The docs f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thank you all for your help, I now have a functioning interface. As it
turns out, trying to do things the "correct" way was wrong. The timing
was so tight that doing anything (such as traversing the while-loop
once) instead of a read immediately afte
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:53:45 -0400
Tom Pacheco wrote:
> On 10/21/2010 4:05 PM, Todd Walter wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:03:58 +0100
> > MRAB wrote:
> >
> >> On 21/10/2010 15:57, Todd W
On 10/21/2010 4:05 PM, Todd Walter wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:03:58 +0100
MRAB wrote:
On 21/10/2010 15:57, Todd Walter wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 00:07:58 +0100
MRAB wrote:
[snip]
The docs f
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:27:51 -0400
Todd Walter wrote:
> Is there a way to specify the source port for a
> transmission without first binding to it?
Of course not, why do you want to do so?
(well, not using plain UDP or TCP, that is. You can of course do that
through ad-hoc means in the applicatio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:00:03 +0100
MRAB wrote:
> On 21/10/2010 21:05, Todd Walter wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:03:58 +0100
> > MRAB wrote:
> >
> >> On 21/10/2010 15:57, Todd Walter wrote
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:00:03 +0100
MRAB wrote:
> On 21/10/2010 21:05, Todd Walter wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:03:58 +0100
> > MRAB wrote:
> >
> >> On 21/10/2010 15:57, Todd Walter wrote
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:00:03 +0100
MRAB wrote:
> On 21/10/2010 21:05, Todd Walter wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:03:58 +0100
> > MRAB wrote:
> >
> >> On 21/10/2010 15:57, Todd Walter wrote
On 21/10/2010 21:05, Todd Walter wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:03:58 +0100
MRAB wrote:
On 21/10/2010 15:57, Todd Walter wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 00:07:58 +0100
MRAB wrote:
[snip]
The docs fo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:03:58 +0100
MRAB wrote:
> On 21/10/2010 15:57, Todd Walter wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 00:07:58 +0100
> > MRAB wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> The docs for 's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:03:58 +0100
MRAB wrote:
> On 21/10/2010 15:57, Todd Walter wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 00:07:58 +0100
> > MRAB wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> The docs for 's
On 21/10/2010 15:57, Todd Walter wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 00:07:58 +0100
MRAB wrote:
[snip]
The docs for 'sendto' say:
"""The socket should not be connected to a remote socket, since
the destination socket is specified by address."""
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 00:07:58 +0100
MRAB wrote:
> >
> [snip]
>
> The docs for 'sendto' say:
>
> """The socket should not be connected to a remote socket, since
> the destination socket is specified by address."""
>
> Could your problem be caus
On 20/10/2010 21:20, Todd Walter wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
When transmitting via UDP to a PLC, I run into a strange problem
where socket.sendto returns double the number of characters sent in the
datagram. I thought this was an error and used Wireshark to snif
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
When transmitting via UDP to a PLC, I run into a strange problem
where socket.sendto returns double the number of characters sent in the
datagram. I thought this was an error and used Wireshark to sniff the
connection and discovered that it di
15 matches
Mail list logo