On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 11:10:28PM +0000, Alan Hourihane wrote: >On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 02:17:49PM -0800, Brian Genisio wrote: >> Should we add the folowing line to XlibInt.c? : >> #ifdef __CYGWIN__ >> #define ETEST() (errno == EAGAIN || errno == EWOULDBLOCK || errno == ENOBUFS) >> >> Or, is there a better solution? What do you (Cyg/XF86 developers) think? > >Seems like a reasonable assessment Brian. We could do this, although I'd >like to understand why there isn't any buffer space on the socket. > >Is there a test application you can email to me for testing..?
I wonder if cygwin should just be mapping WSAENOBUFS to EAGAIN. It seems like we somehow invented a new errno here. Regardless, where errno tests are concerned, I think it makes sense to do something like this: #ifdef ENOBUFS /* ENOBUFS is apparently a Cygwin-specific errno */ #define ETEST() (errno == EAGAIN || errno == EWOULDBLOCK || errno == ENOBUFS) #endif That means that you are relying on the existence of the errno rather than the fact that it is cygwin. So, if we decide to deprecate ENOBUFS sometime in the future, the code will still compile correctly. Nice debugging effort, by the way. cgf
