I thought of the same thing before, port 5906 too. But I don't feel comfortable taking up one more port without some consensus. Maybe if there were more people reporting that their ZeroMQ applications (with heavy socket creation!) were hanging on Windows...
For now, I have modified signaler.cpp to not assert within the "critical section". https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/commit/4a7f07a19ae226fe92c3c7320bd425f9a18d0c79 On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Felipe Farinon < [email protected]> wrote: > Maybe we could change signaler_port to another value and define that port > 5905 is protected by the Event and the new port (e.g. 5906) is protected by > Mutex. This way we don't need to check if the Event is present. > > Em 11/11/2013 11:16, Felipe Farinon escreveu: > > Ok. > > Seems reasonable to me and I think that a 4 seconds timeout is fine. The > only scenario where I could imagine that this would break is if some heavy > socket creation is going on and IFF the WaitForSingleObject wakeup order > for Events is not FIFO. > > Em 11/11/2013 11:02, KIU Shueng Chuan escreveu: > > Realistically, I think only bind, accept and connect have a chance of > failing. The rest of the asserts just test for programming errors. Accept > and connect are already handled. What's left is handling bind error. > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing > [email protected]http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing > [email protected]http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
