On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Martin Wilck wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Perhaps I screwed up the blocking semantics of non-overlapped IO. > > That's what it looks like to me. > > I can't make sense out of these traces. The numbers of bytes transferred > are different, but you were transferring different data. > The general pattern of function calls and messages is very similar > with and without the patch. Especially the error patterns are similar. > > Martin > > Btw I don't think I can help with the serial app. I see no indication > that overlapped IO plays a role there. > > Maybe I was hallucinating, or maybe the juno server was just having a bad half-hour. Sometimes, not often, these sessions can fail for no good reason, or at least not one that has anything to do with program code on this end. I thought maybe trace was changing the timing of things, so I tried the app without a trace, but with tcpdump active. AFAICT, it worked fine. Twice. One other possibility, - the script I used to run the app using wine as last built (instead of the installed wine) invokes it --winver nt40. I don't think I did that earlier, and the app might behave differently. I've installed the patches for now and I'll beat on them a bit more and see if anything shakes loose.
Sorry, maybe I put you and me both to a lot of trouble because of an unrelated glitch. I would feel better if somebody else besides me would take a swat at testing these winsock patches, too. Lawson