> On Jun 2 14:46, Kristian Ivarsson via Cygwin wrote: > > Hey folks (probably Corinna more specifically) > > > > As far as I know the "unix domain socket implementation" is not really > > complete > > > > We tried it and it didn't work for our purposes (the symptoms were > > UDP-like, i.e. it seemed that some messages were lost along the way > > (or possibly ended up in the wrong order) > > That shouldn't occur because the current AF_UNIX implementation is using > AF_INET sockets under the hood, and it doesn't implement any packet > caching overriding the OS buffers.
Maybe the symptoms were explained bad. The real observable symptoms are that the endpoint doesn't get a message once in a while and it, depending on testcase, just "hangs" in a reading block though the other side successfully sends them and in other testcases (where we have a sequence number in the message) msg number X+1 ends up before X (etc) (which is ok with DGRAM-semantics but not generally with AF_UNIX (as far as I understand)) Maybe the description of that messages are lost were bad, but maybe they are dropped (perhaps by the fact that the socket-buffer or such is full (just a wild guess)) If we get some spare time, we will try to reproduce this in a more simple manner (i.e. a small test-program) Keep up the good work, Kristian [snip] > Corinna > > -- > Corinna Vinschen > Cygwin Maintainer > -- > Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html > FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/ > Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html > Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple -- Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple