Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 10:40:47 -0500
From: Jason Tishler <jason AT tishler DOT net>
Subject: Re: Winsock closesocket() problem
In-reply-to: <3E6762CA.8EF5B6A8@ieee.org>
To: "Pierre A. Humblet" <Pierre DOT Humblet AT ieee DOT org>
Cc: Cygwin-Developers <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Mail-followup-to: "Pierre A. Humblet" <Pierre DOT Humblet AT ieee DOT org>,
 Cygwin-Developers <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Message-id: <20030306154047.GC2008@tishler.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
References: <20030306144658 DOT GB2008 AT tishler DOT net> <3E6762CA DOT 8EF5B6A8 AT ieee DOT org>

On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:01:30AM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> Jason Tishler wrote:
> > Note that the problem follows the second close().  If I switch the
> > order of the close() calls, then dup()-ed socket closes without any
> > errors.  Hence, I don't believe that this problem is directly
> > related to dup().
> 
> and then closing the original socket fails. Correct?

Yes, with the above change I get the following:

    $ sc9
    close(fd) failed with 108

> last time we talked you indicated that the socket was in fact not
> closed.

Sorry, I meant to get back to you and inform you that the above
conclusion was wrong.

I misinterpreted from where the following Sysinternals' Process
Explorer output came:

    0x10   File             0x001F01FF   \Device\Afd\Endpoint
    0x110  File             0x001F01FF   \Device\Afd\Endpoint

The first line above is created *before* socket() is called.  The second
one is created by socket() and deleted by the first close().  So, if my
current interpretation is correct, then the socket is indeed being close
albeit possibly too soon.

> Do you know think it is closed but Windows errs in reporting an error?

Yes, I think the socket is closed, but I don't understand why Windows
reports a WSAENOTSOCK error.

Jason

-- 
PGP/GPG Key: http://www.tishler.net/jason/pubkey.asc or key servers
Fingerprint: 7A73 1405 7F2B E669 C19D  8784 1AFD E4CC ECF4 8EF6