Randy Macleod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Also, bailing out after the first message when MSG_PEEK > >is specified appears to be compatible with the wording of the standard, > >so I don't think people could complain we weren't doing the right thing. > > Didn't we agree that it's a poorly worded standard?
It doesn't even say what you are supposed to do if you find both MSG_WAITALL and MSG_DONTWAIT in flags... > Having message oriented sockets ignore MSG_WAITALL sounds good to me > ...but... > One thing that might make sense is to return an error and set > errno to EOPNOTSUPP? Comments? 2 Arguments against this: - Linux UDP sockets ignore this flag - Making it fail breaks user space; i.e. apps that worked before now fail. Regards, Florian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ tipc-discussion mailing list tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tipc-discussion
