From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 94412 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2018 20:05:00 -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 94395 invoked by uid 89); 5 Nov 2018 20:04:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-101.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GOOD_FROM_CORINNA_CYGWIN,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Lavrentiev, NLM, ncbi, NCBI X-HELO: mout.kundenserver.de Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (HELO mout.kundenserver.de) (212.227.126.187) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 20:04:57 +0000 Received: from calimero.vinschen.de ([24.134.7.25]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue002 [212.227.15.167]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MQBaV-1gP0320QqJ-005H4e for ; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 21:04:55 +0100 Received: from calimero.vinschen.de ([24.134.7.25]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue002 [212.227.15.167]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MQBaV-1gP0320QqJ-005H4e for ; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 21:04:55 +0100 Received: by calimero.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id 33922A803D5; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 21:04:54 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 20:05:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: SOCK_NONBLOCK not honored Message-ID: <20181105200454.GC18379@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-SW-Source: 2018-11/txt/msg00053.txt.bz2 --PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 655 On Nov 1 20:56, Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] via cygwin wrote: > Hi, >=20 > Looks like CYGWIN defines but does not honor the SOCK_NONBLOCK flag when = used with socket(2). >=20 > (It also defines SOCK_CLOEXEC but I haven't checked whether it is honored= -- full disclosure.) >=20 > 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 --=20 Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Maintainer --PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-length: 833 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEoVYPmneWZnwT6kwF9TYGna5ET6AFAlvgomYACgkQ9TYGna5E T6Dz9Q/9E6kF3r0XKCOMU0QikNin5mDC+syDXNZfIsDtpz9X+0OnMiCPhuNk4V5e U+rwGghyRpOnQUJWVtKy5r+yX+Buvdpn0lq80DBDizNQw/nQ5iOTLRd4sZHHqVs7 kJcE20iiML1zTP6HncXpHemwrkbusIvDwDXQSLx/244BaBKsNafh3SsHCtJbaAgn CvCUr9BZaSOzGqgvMDgKtGyEmokoQzFwL1WBjechaWcxAP6IzEcCRrfBb8YMB0Ja qP0Um3yzofrB556ACxHtAAb/s/vYd6AsnLj/fFdIlL9z2SO3Y+kJpgfrF8hFsIet 8jcAkwuwcln47w9SvBW7Js0GdhmLu4FMP3MegjPCMpyvpQNS5sNXd2lN6F2w2ln5 4Zf8KslBr1LrPvBXEmvQRMurHjfwjGZSECwNTv63w3l4OUZDG9aTU4eu0TzVx/xR 9cq3vRxv8sUHjVrP8SOohOlqqd5jBv8ZYp8H3MbEVD3XDNbxy1V8FaDeWuiAimSi Z0f74zlk8cy51xl/7tEf6ug58VxfyhqoSqvY4nPY6k/rbk2h/5qjzFreo1Gs+Uj1 XXTsf68BtgclndAqNH2Z2MYnfEH5WkB8cQjdlmgHaBVHohX9tVNsMa7Z80UZgOAC HDswZjIYUCcgNWc/mkrn1ozM7oAOV11No3yCQ5KtPgEcPP49JPM= =AkVA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr--