Your patch has the wrong polarity (the code you are adding is marked with '-' rather than '+'). Please post the corrected patch and I'll look at it.
Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Nicholes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 2:25 PM Subject: [PATCH] Win32/NetWare sockets.c > Any feedback would be appreciated. If it looks OK then I will go ahead > and check it in. > > Brad > > >>> "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Wednesday, January 02, > 2002 12:12:59 PM >>> > I'll look at this this afternoon ... but Mr's Stoddard and Trawick > have > a wee bit of insight about Win32 Sockets API [much more than myself] > and > might be interested as well. > > Bill > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brad Nicholes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 10:37 AM > Subject: Changes to sockets.c > > > > Bill, > > Would you mind taking a quick look at this before I check it in. > > > Basically I moved the call to accept() before allocating the > > apr_socket_t structure so that I can do non-blocking accepts without > > chewing up a huge chunk of memory on WSAEWOULDBLOCK's. No need to > > allocate memory if it would have blocked anyway or recieved some > other > > error. FYI, there may be other places where the APR functions don't > > accomodate a non-blocking scheme, but I haven't had the time to look > > into it yet. > > > > thanks, > > Brad > > >
