Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id: <200302251516.h1PFGNN22512@head-cfa.cfa.harvard.edu>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: connect() not interrupted by sigalrm?
cc: eric AT head-cfa DOT cfa DOT harvard DOT edu
References: <200302241757 DOT h1OHvQN16044 AT head-cfa DOT cfa DOT harvard DOT edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:16:23 -0500
From: Eric Mandel <eric AT head-cfa DOT cfa DOT harvard DOT edu>


Dear Corinna,

> The Cygwin connect() call isn't interruptible so far.
> It's possible to change it to an interruptible call but that
> requires some coding.
> In the meantime, how about using a non-blocking connect() and a call to
> select() instead?

Thanks for your prompt reply and suggestion. Consideration of a (more
complicated) non-blocking connect() scheme depends on whether you
think an interruptible connect() call might actually be coded at some
point.  If its the sort of thing that would be a good idea in an ideal
world, but which probably will not get done under current circumstances
(i.e., too hard for the small return), then the complications of
non-blocking connect would have to be considered. Otherwise, I prefer
to wait in hope.

Your clarification on this point would be appreciated -- even if its
"I don't know".

Regards,

Eric


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/