Svante Signell, le mar. 29 janv. 2019 18:35:24 +0100, a ecrit:
> On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 21:59 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 16:43 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Pino Toscano, on Fri 08 Jan 2016 16:40:08 +0100, wrote:
> > > > In data venerdì 8 gennaio 2016 13:34:46, Samu
Svante Signell, le mar. 29 janv. 2019 18:37:02 +0100, a ecrit:
> On Sat, 2016-01-09 at 00:37 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, on Fri 08 Jan 2016 21:59:56 +0100, wrote:
> > > > Yes. And SO_REUSEADDR won't help there :)
> > >
> > > Samuel, this is exactly what the SO_REUSEADDR in pf
On Sat, 2016-01-09 at 00:37 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, on Fri 08 Jan 2016 21:59:56 +0100, wrote:
> > > Yes. And SO_REUSEADDR won't help there :)
> >
> > Samuel, this is exactly what the SO_REUSEADDR in pflocal should do:
>
> Except no Unix makes it do that.
Well, it works fo
On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 21:59 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 16:43 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Pino Toscano, on Fri 08 Jan 2016 16:40:08 +0100, wrote:
> > > In data venerdì 8 gennaio 2016 13:34:46, Samuel Thibault ha
> > > scritto:
> > > > Svante Signell, on Fri 08 Jan 201
Svante Signell, on Sat 09 Jan 2016 09:15:47 +0100, wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-01-09 at 00:37 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Svante Signell, on Fri 08 Jan 2016 21:59:56 +0100, wrote:
> > > Unlink the old socket and create a new one with the same name. (I
> > > wonder how GNU/Linux is implementing this
On Sat, 2016-01-09 at 00:37 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, on Fri 08 Jan 2016 21:59:56 +0100, wrote:
> >
> > Unlink the old socket and create a new one with the same name. (I
> > wonder how GNU/Linux is implementing this?)
>
> It doesn't.
Since it works on GNU/Linux how is it s
Svante Signell, on Fri 08 Jan 2016 21:59:56 +0100, wrote:
> > Yes. And SO_REUSEADDR won't help there :)
>
> Samuel, this is exactly what the SO_REUSEADDR in pflocal should do:
Except no Unix makes it do that.
> Unlink the old socket and create a new one with the same name. (I
> wonder how GNU/Li
On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 16:43 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Pino Toscano, on Fri 08 Jan 2016 16:40:08 +0100, wrote:
> > In data venerdì 8 gennaio 2016 13:34:46, Samuel Thibault ha
> > scritto:
> > > Svante Signell, on Fri 08 Jan 2016 13:27:49 +0100, wrote:
> > > > > Depends on how the test is made.
Pino Toscano, on Fri 08 Jan 2016 16:40:08 +0100, wrote:
> In data venerdì 8 gennaio 2016 13:34:46, Samuel Thibault ha scritto:
> > Svante Signell, on Fri 08 Jan 2016 13:27:49 +0100, wrote:
> > > > Depends on how the test is made. SO_REUSEADDR is defined in
> > > > bits/socket.h but
> > > > is
> >
In data venerdì 8 gennaio 2016 13:34:46, Samuel Thibault ha scritto:
> Svante Signell, on Fri 08 Jan 2016 13:27:49 +0100, wrote:
> > > Depends on how the test is made. SO_REUSEADDR is defined in bits/socket.h
> > > but
> > > is
> > > not functional (yet).
> >
> > To clarify; For pflocal. For pfin
Riccardo Mottola, on Fri 08 Jan 2016 14:08:43 +0100, wrote:
> Do local sockets work in HURD ?
They do. If something doesn't work, it deserves fixing, either in
pflocal, or in applications :)
Samuel
Hi,
Svante Signell wrote:
Depends on how the test is made. SO_REUSEADDR is defined in bits/socket.h but is
not functional (yet).
I attach the test below. The test is clearly done on AF_INET, so from
what you tell, it is expected to work.
I know gnustep has a setting to work with local and w
Svante Signell, on Fri 08 Jan 2016 13:27:49 +0100, wrote:
> > Depends on how the test is made. SO_REUSEADDR is defined in bits/socket.h
> > but
> > is
> > not functional (yet).
>
> To clarify; For pflocal. For pfinet it should work.
Ok. It seems to be accepted for local sockets on Linux, but it
Svante Signell, on Fri 08 Jan 2016 13:19:42 +0100, wrote:
> Depends on how the test is made. SO_REUSEADDR is defined in bits/socket.h but
> is
> not functional (yet).
How is it not functional? Again, I don't see why it shouldn't:
sock_setsockopt handles it, and is plugged into the S_socket_setop
On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 13:19 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 13:08 +0100, Riccardo Mottola wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > gnustep base has a test:
> >
> > configure:6125: checking whether SO_REUSEADDR is broken
> >
> > the result is:
> > configure:6160: result: no
> >
> >
> > howev
Riccardo Mottola, on Fri 08 Jan 2016 13:08:45 +0100, wrote:
> however, once run, I get an error about the reuse.
Which error? Are you sure you don't actually have a server running on
the same port?
> Manually changing the config.h, makes the code work. I wonder thus why
> the test passes... is i
On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 13:08 +0100, Riccardo Mottola wrote:
> Hi,
>
> gnustep base has a test:
>
> configure:6125: checking whether SO_REUSEADDR is broken
>
> the result is:
> configure:6160: result: no
>
>
> however, once run, I get an error about the reuse. Manually changing the
> config.h,
Hi,
gnustep base has a test:
configure:6125: checking whether SO_REUSEADDR is broken
the result is:
configure:6160: result: no
however, once run, I get an error about the reuse. Manually changing the
config.h, makes the code work. I wonder thus why the test passes... is
it lying?
Someone h
18 matches
Mail list logo
