On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 05:35:11PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>I have applied a patch to accept(), btw. This should now work in the
>given scenario. It occured to me that the returned value is incorrect
>for AF_UNIX/AF_LOCAL sockets, but that was always the case and it's not
>a regression. U
On Aug 12 16:20, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> On 12/08/2009 14:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Aug 12 14:48, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>>> On 12/08/2009 13:54, Jon TURNEY wrote:
Hmmm... but if it's really the size of the sockname argument which is
causing the accept() to fail, this would be a bug in cyg
On 12/08/2009 14:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Aug 12 14:48, Jon TURNEY wrote:
On 12/08/2009 13:54, Jon TURNEY wrote:
Hmmm... but if it's really the size of the sockname argument which is
causing the accept() to fail, this would be a bug in cygwin's accept()
implementation, as it's supposed to
On Aug 12 14:48, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> On 12/08/2009 13:54, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>> Hmmm... but if it's really the size of the sockname argument which is
>> causing the accept() to fail, this would be a bug in cygwin's accept()
>> implementation, as it's supposed to truncate the data written to the
>> s
On 12/08/2009 13:54, Jon TURNEY wrote:
Hmmm... but if it's really the size of the sockname argument which is
causing the accept() to fail, this would be a bug in cygwin's accept()
implementation, as it's supposed to truncate the data written to the
sockname, rather than fail if it won't fit [1].