Readv/writev patch

Christopher Faylor
Fri Aug 30 19:48:00 GMT 2002

On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 03:35:48AM +0100, Conrad Scott wrote:
>"Corinna Vinschen" <> wrote:
>> Especially I'm reluctant to introduce your changes
>> to the sendto and recvfrom implementation since I know there is
>> a good reason to use the WinSock1 calls in the non-blocking case
>> even though I don't recall why, right now.  Please skip that
>> beautyifing patches and just add the readv/writev functionality.
>I went back to the mailing list archives to see if I could dig up the
>problem here and it seems that the code to fallback to the winsock1
>calls in the non-blocking case was introduced as a result of the
>discussion in the thread starting at
>  Interestingly, the
>test program that demonstrated the "problem" was itself bogus.  Like,
>you don't set the non-blocking flag w/ the following code:
>  printf("Setting NONBLOCK\n");
>  flags = fcntl (sock, F_GETFL, 0);
>  flags &= O_NONBLOCK;


>  ret = fcntl (sock, F_SETFL, flags);


More information about the Cygwin-patches mailing list