Hi Sam,
you are right. `assert(((unsigned)socket) <
(_ACTUAL_SOCKET_POOL_SIZE));` should be the right one... with `0 <=
socket` as you gave it only 0 and negative socket ids would be allowed
which is definetly allowed ;-). I provided a PR to fix that [1]. If
you spot any more errors don't be afraid
Hello,
I finally got around to porting my implementation to use sock instead of
conn. I am running into a similar issue now. It seems this check is still
in sock (see
https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/blame/master/sys/posix/sockets/posix_sockets.c#L237
).
I think that the check should be:
assert(0 <
Hi Sam,
2017-01-12 14:06 GMT+01:00 Sam Kumar :
> Hi Martine,
> I will work on testing it with sock and PR #6004, but it may take some
> time since I might need to port the interface from conn to sock.
> It seems to me that conn is deprecated and that sock is its replacement
> moving forward. Am I
Hi Martine,
I will work on testing it with sock and PR #6004, but it may take some time
since I might need to port the interface from conn to sock.
It seems to me that conn is deprecated and that sock is its replacement
moving forward. Am I correct? And what is the motivation for moving away
from c
Hi Sam,
can you try with PR #6004 which ports POSIX sockets from conn to sock?
There are still some kinks in this PR, but I plan to fix them until the
release. On another note: the conn implementation of sockets was never
tested with TCP (since there was no TCP implementation then), but feel free
t