> Interesting. Two people have said wait on the handle, a third said > call > GetOverlappedResult() and let that wait for it to finish.
If the third is me, then I refrain to accept it! I merely pointed out that using false as the last parameter makes the loop hog the CPU. I'd also wait on the handle, to be able to set a timeout. > Does anyone want to change their mind? Are those two methods equally > as valid, or might one have any kind of advantage? > Note that I do not want this thread to hang caused by waiting for > bytes that never come... waiting on the handle with a timeout sounds > safer? They're both valid, of course, but for different cases. I can't see any way to set a timeout (that you definitely need) using GetOverlappedResult( ). Indeed you can't wait on something that might never happen. ------------- Ehsan Akhgari Farda Technology (http://www.farda-tech.com/) List Owner: [email protected] [ Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [ WWW: http://www.beginthread.com/Ehsan ] Close your eyes, and imagine to be without what we take for granted every time we open our eyes... _______________________________________________ msvc mailing list [email protected] See http://beginthread.com/mailman/listinfo/msvc_beginthread.com for subscription changes, and list archive.
