Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sourceware.cygnus.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 18:26:03 -0500 From: "'Chris Faylor'" To: Heribert Dahms Cc: "Fifer, Eric" , "'Ray Easton'" , cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: call_handler, interrupt_now and interruptible Message-ID: <20000204182602.B3971@cygnus.com> Mail-Followup-To: Heribert Dahms , "Fifer, Eric" , 'Ray Easton' , cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com References: <99B82AA9708ED0119B55006097125A002DE8F5@ifk63.mach.uni-karlsruhe.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <99B82AA9708ED0119B55006097125A002DE8F5@ifk63.mach.uni-karlsruhe.de>; from heribert_dahms@icon-gmbh.de on Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 10:45:14PM +0100 On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 10:45:14PM +0100, Heribert Dahms wrote: >I guess this breaks now my code, which basically does a select() until >a socket becomes readable, starts a loop preparing a timeout with >alarm(60) for the following blocking fgets(), which is normally reset >using alarm(0) after each line, but is supposed to be interrupted in >case of a bad behaving client? Why have you reached this conclusion? Have you actually noticed this behavior? The changes that I made should not have eliminated functionality in anything but DLLs and that is only temporary. If this is just supposition, then try the cygwin DLL. There is no need to speculate about things breaking if you haven't actually checked the code in question. cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com