Marton Balint (12020-01-24):
> I tested this on Windows7/10 and it does not seem to work. closesocket()
> indeed aborts the pending recv() call, but not shutdown(). CancelIoEx()
> seems to work though.
Using one of these to implement a pthread_cancel() that works for our
situation seems like the b
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020, Matt Oliver wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 08:12, Marton Balint wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020, Nicolas George wrote:
Marton Balint (12020-01-16):
It is not supported by every threading implementation, and the only
thing we
gain with it is an immediate shutdown of rec
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 10:12 PM Marton Balint wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020, Nicolas George wrote:
>
> > Marton Balint (12020-01-16):
> >> It is not supported by every threading implementation, and the only thing
> >> we
> >> gain with it is an immediate shutdown of receiving packets on clo
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 08:12, Marton Balint wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020, Nicolas George wrote:
>
> > Marton Balint (12020-01-16):
> >> It is not supported by every threading implementation, and the only
> thing we
> >> gain with it is an immediate shutdown of receiving packets on close and
>
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020, Nicolas George wrote:
Marton Balint (12020-01-16):
It is not supported by every threading implementation, and the only thing we
gain with it is an immediate shutdown of receiving packets on close and
avoiding the poll call before reading the data.
I don't think it is a b
Marton Balint (12020-01-16):
> It is not supported by every threading implementation, and the only thing we
> gain with it is an immediate shutdown of receiving packets on close and
> avoiding the poll call before reading the data.
>
> I don't think it is a big issue if it takes 0.1 sec of delay t
Am Di., 21. Jan. 2020 um 22:56 Uhr schrieb Marton Balint :
>
>
>
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2020, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 01:20:16AM +0100, Marton Balint wrote:
> >> It is not supported by every threading implementation, and the only thing
> >> we
> >> gain with it is an imm
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 01:20:16AM +0100, Marton Balint wrote:
It is not supported by every threading implementation, and the only thing we
gain with it is an immediate shutdown of receiving packets on close and
avoiding the poll call before rea
On 1/17/2020 4:51 AM, Matt Oliver wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 18:44, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:30 AM Michael Niedermayer
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 01:20:16AM +0100, Marton Balint wrote:
It is not supported by every threading implementation, a
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 18:44, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:30 AM Michael Niedermayer
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 01:20:16AM +0100, Marton Balint wrote:
> > > It is not supported by every threading implementation, and the only
> thing we
> > > gain with it is a
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:30 AM Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 01:20:16AM +0100, Marton Balint wrote:
> > It is not supported by every threading implementation, and the only thing we
> > gain with it is an immediate shutdown of receiving packets on close and
> > avoiding t
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 01:20:16AM +0100, Marton Balint wrote:
> It is not supported by every threading implementation, and the only thing we
> gain with it is an immediate shutdown of receiving packets on close and
> avoiding the poll call before reading the data.
>
> I don't think it is a big is
It is not supported by every threading implementation, and the only thing we
gain with it is an immediate shutdown of receiving packets on close and
avoiding the poll call before reading the data.
I don't think it is a big issue if it takes 0.1 sec of delay to close an udp
stream. Back when this w
13 matches
Mail list logo