Readv/writev patch

Corinna Vinschen
Mon Sep 2 03:48:00 GMT 2002

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:48:26PM -0400, Chris Faylor wrote:
> 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;

It wasn't quite that but actually the whole thread seem to be based
on a handful of misinterpretations.

Ok Conrad, send your patch right away.


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                      
Red Hat, Inc.

More information about the Cygwin-patches mailing list