From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4594 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2018 04:55:58 -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 118617 invoked by uid 89); 9 Jan 2018 04:52:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*F:U*mark, adress, accommodations, H*r:8.12.11 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; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 04:52:05 +0000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by m0.truegem.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) id w094q31a012543 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 20:52:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mark@maxrnd.com) Received: from 76-217-5-154.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net(76.217.5.154), claiming to be "[192.168.1.100]" via SMTP by m0.truegem.net, id smtpdq2Ht1H; Mon Jan 8 20:52:01 2018 Subject: Re: AW: RPC clnt_create() adress already in use To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <59D90AF8D70E9740907BACDE2BCB520836CEAFA5@RESW102.resdom01.local> From: Mark Geisert Message-ID: <9e5fb028-573e-b4cd-7a44-77be4f0fb306@maxrnd.com> Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 04:55:00 -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: <59D90AF8D70E9740907BACDE2BCB520836CEAFA5@RESW102.resdom01.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-01/txt/msg00063.txt.bz2 Hi Raimund, I think I might have an idea where the root cause is. But first I want to revisit your very first email on this subject, from last September 22. You mentioned test results from various Cygwin versions vs various Windows versions. Are you absolutely sure your test program ran correctly on Cygwin 1.5.18 on *both* Windows XP and Windows 7? The reason I ask is that Windows' handling of socket option SO_REUSEADDR has changed over time and Cygwin has had to make accommodations to keep up. There might possibly be a need to revisit this within Cygwin. I want to test a possible solution within the Cygwin DLL on my test machine but it has another two days to go on a factorization problem it's running (under Cygwin). So I will respond again after I test. Thank you, ..mark -- 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