From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 39184 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2019 08:06:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 39090 invoked by uid 89); 15 Mar 2019 08:06:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_NUMSUBJECT autolearn=no version=3.3.1 spammy=ticket, participate, HX-Languages-Length:797, H*UA:6.1 X-HELO: m0.truegem.net Received: from m0.truegem.net (HELO m0.truegem.net) (69.55.228.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:06:44 +0000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by m0.truegem.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) id x2F86gWO018682 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 01:06:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@maxrnd.com) Received: from 162-235-43-67.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net(162.235.43.67), claiming to be "[192.168.1.100]" via SMTP by m0.truegem.net, id smtpddq4hPS; Fri Mar 15 00:06:34 2019 Subject: Re: Patch request to qt 5.9.4 To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <1439412702.1866573.1551653028041.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.co.jp> <1439412702.1866573.1551653028041.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.co.jp> <0faa5fb55a0af4803fcdff786dba8be440355609.camel@cygwin.com> <1896876564.419596.1552373491409.JavaMail.yah <1346787976.482037.1552451229824.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.co.jp> From: Mark Geisert Message-ID: <17710c05-3ccc-b8de-6b8b-db022c1f1ce3@maxrnd.com> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:06:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/49.0 SeaMonkey/2.46 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-03/txt/msg00387.txt.bz2 Mark Geisert wrote: > I believe I've found the root cause of this issue of outbound connect on a > non-blocking socket not working under Cygwin. [...] Hi Tatsuro, This Qt issue should be reported to their developers. Do you have experience opening a ticket with them? If so, please do so and let me know the ticket/bug number. I will participate in discussion there. I could also open a ticket myself if you prefer that I do it. It seems to me that we should continue to apply your one-line patch that turns off O_NONBLOCK at that one Qt location, as a workaround for this Qt problem on Cygwin. When the Qt devs fix the root cause and release a new Qt containing the fix, we can then remove our local patch. ..mark Yaakov: Does this all sound reasonable to you? -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple