On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 10:53:08AM +0200, Jaroslaw Kowalski wrote: > > What is the current status of using MSG_NOSIGNAL? I found the test for it > in configure.in, there's also HAVE_MSG_NOSIGNAL define, but I find it > rather inconsistent across the code.
Various people have promised us a patch to handle it. We're still waiting for the full fixes, so for now we've just worked around it with a #define. > > As far as I know MSG_NOSIGNAL should be used to prevent some system calls > from raising SIGPIPE signal. The alternative is to install a handler and > simply ignore the signal by signal(SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN). > > In the code, there are some places where MSG_NOSIGNAL is actually used but > there's no signal(...) call in cases where MSG_NOSIGNAL isn't supported. > > Is it supposed to be that way? I can prepare a patch to make it consistent > but I'm not sure if we shouldn't just ignore SIGPIPE in all cases and > forget using MSG_NOSIGNAL at all. I'm not sure whether we should ignore SIGPIPE in what is essentially a library. Temporarily disabling it on systems that dont have MSG_NOSIGNAL should be ok though. > > I found at least 2 more places where using MSG_NOSIGNAL would be advised: > sendto() and recvfrom() system calls in io-layer/sockets.c, but I'm > unaware of other places where it is also needed. Yes, it should probably be used there too. - Dick _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
