Hi Richard,
On 28.06.2014 10:48, Richard Braun wrote:
Thanks for the report. There are actually two sides of the problem.
First, I agree that there seems to be a bug, but let's take a closer
look at the spec. The return value for recv() is defined as :
"Upon successful completion, recv() shall
I'm inclined to say libc is not the right place to fix this. If the user
says write/send 0, what that means should be up to the io server to
decide--even if all the servers we have today are intending to implement
the same POSIX semantics.
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 12:42:40PM +0200, Richard Braun wrote:
> I'll see if simply catching completely empty messages at socket_send is
> a good enough solution.
The solution seems to work, and I couldn't see anything against it,
unlike the previous attempt. However I'd really like to put it into
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 12:09:15PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Richard Braun, le Sat 28 Jun 2014 11:51:42 +0200, a écrit :
> > On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 10:48:56AM +0200, Richard Braun wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 03:56:46PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> > > > This is because the clie
Richard Braun, le Sat 28 Jun 2014 11:51:42 +0200, a écrit :
> On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 10:48:56AM +0200, Richard Braun wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 03:56:46PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> > > This is because the client is calling:
> > > send(sockfd, "", 0, 0)
> > >
> > > Normally this
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 10:48:56AM +0200, Richard Braun wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 03:56:46PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> > This is because the client is calling:
> > send(sockfd, "", 0, 0)
> >
> > Normally this doesn't trigger recv() in the server and thus can be
> > used to test,
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 03:56:46PM +0200, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote:
> This is because the client is calling:
> send(sockfd, "", 0, 0)
>
> Normally this doesn't trigger recv() in the server and thus can be
> used to test, whether the socket is working.
> But on Hurd it actually sends an empty
