On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 12:57:20AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 12:15:25AM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: > >At 04:20 PM 3/11/2003 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > >>> > I'm seriously concidering to remove all the fixup_before/fixup_after > >>> > from fhandler_socket::dup() and just call fhandler_base::dup() on > >>> > NT systems. > > > >Corinna, > > > >I like that and I have pushed the logic to also do it on Win9X, without > >apparent bad effects. I just delivered 140 e-mails from a WinME to an exim > >server on Win98, ran inetd, ssh, etc... I also tried duping a socket after a > >fork, it worked fine. > > I think it doesn't work fine on Windows 95, IIRC.
I search email archives and MSDN again and it is possible that I used the same fixup_before/fixup_after technique in dup for... well, symmetry. All errors mentioned in KB on sockets are actually related to sockets duplicated between processes. Win95 wasn't related, AFAIR, since it didn't even have WinSock2 installed by default. Anyway, the question is if it's worth the risk to break anything again by reverting to DupHandle also for 9x. What's the gain of doing this? AFAICS, just speed. It's not expected to work "better". I'm not using 9x on a daily basis (all my 98 installations are very unstable for no apparent reason) and so my tests are very brief. Hesitant, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
