On Oct 5 09:54, Brian Ford wrote: > On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Dave Korn wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Rainer Hochreiter > > > Sent: 05 October 2004 15:29 > > > > > running the program listed below with argument 'reuse' under > > > cygwin and linux returns different results! > > > > > > from my point of view, the linux result is quite what i > > > expected, a bind() error 'Address already in use'. > > > > Huh? But that's exactly what SO_REUSEADDR is supposed to _prevent_ > > from happening. That's why it's called _REUSE_addr, because it lets you > > *re-use* an addr, without getting an error message. Why would you > > expect setting it to stop you from reusing the address? > > I was about to say the same thing, but... > > http://www.unixguide.net/network/socketfaq/4.5.shtml > > It is only supposed to reuse if the other socket is in the TIME_WAIT > state. I think that is what he is complaining about.
That's not how it is implemented in WinSock, though. That's the reason it works even if the already existing socket is not in TIME_WAIT. MSDN states: SO_REUSEADDR By default, a socket cannot be bound [...] to a local address that is already in use. On occasion, however, it can be necessary to reuse an address in this way. Since every connection is uniquely identified by the combination of local and remote addresses, there is no problem with having two sockets bound to the same local address as long as the remote addresses are different. [...] Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
