From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8990 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2002 11:38:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 8647 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2002 11:38:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO potter.bitbybit-is.nl) (194.171.50.45) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Mar 2002 11:38:14 -0000 Received: from appel.bitbybit-is.nl (root@[192.168.2.9]) by potter.bitbybit-is.nl (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA22583; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:38:06 +0100 Received: from localhost (szivan@localhost) by appel.bitbybit-is.nl (8.11.0/8.8.5) with ESMTP id g25BbTR11332; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:37:29 +0100 Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 03:38:00 -0000 From: Ivan Szanto To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Hang problem related to signals and process priority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00248.txt.bz2 Hi, Is there a way to quickly check if data is available for read in a tcp socket without blocking the program? If there is one, we could use that instead of the overly complex signal handling method that sometimes also results in process hangs, which I reported in my previous mail. Yes, select and poll could be used to do such a check, but it looks to me that they are not quick. Or am I wrong in this? Could someone please help me out here? thanks a lot, Ivan -- -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/