On Nov  1 20:56, Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] via cygwin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Looks like CYGWIN defines but does not honor the SOCK_NONBLOCK flag when used with socket(2).
> 
> (It also defines SOCK_CLOEXEC but I haven't checked whether it is honored -- full disclosure.)
> 
> Consider the following code:

Spot on, thanks for the testcase.  Neither SOCK_NONBLOCK, nor
SOCK_CLOEXEC worked as expected.  What was I thinking at the time...?

I pushed a patch and I'm just uploading new developer snapshots to
https://cygwin.com/snapshots/ while I'm typing.  Please give them a try.


Thanks,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Maintainer