[tolj@wapme-systems.de: Re: Problem with accept?!!

[Thomas Pfaff]

Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 03:35:08PM +0200, Thomas Pfaff wrote:
> 
>>I have tried this one and it looks really good. The only thing i would 
>>change is that i would check except_fds instead of write_fds.
> 
> 
> Yes, that makes sense to me.
> 
> Thanks for your detailed feedback!  I'm very happy with the result we
> have now.  I've checked in the patch together with your change and
> put our both names in the ChangeLog entry.  So people know they can
> blame both of us for this patch ;-)
> 

Before someone will notice this and try to blame us one more patch.
If a connect is interrupted subsequent calls to connect should fail and 
select must be used instead. With this patch EINPROGRESS (119) will be 
returned but i think that according to 
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/functions/connect.html
it should be EALREADY (120).

Thomas

--- net.cc.org	2003-06-03 15:24:06.000000000 +0200
+++ net.cc	2003-06-03 16:45:50.000000000 +0200
@@ -775,7 +775,7 @@ cygwin_connect (int fd, const struct soc
    else
      {
        bool was_blocking = false;
-      if (!fh->is_nonblocking ())
+      if (!fh->is_nonblocking () && !fh->is_connect_pending ())
          {
  	  int nonblocking = 1;
  	  fh->ioctl (FIONBIO, &nonblocking);
@@ -817,6 +817,7 @@ cygwin_connect (int fd, const struct soc
  	        {
  		  WSASetLastError (WSAEINPROGRESS);
  		  set_winsock_errno ();
+		  fh->set_connect_state (CONNECT_PENDING);
  		}
  	    }
  	  int nonblocking = 0;