Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 11:18:05 -0600 From: jlemon@americantv.com (Jonathan Lemon) To: michaelh@cet.co.jp (Michael Hancock) Cc: fenner@parc.xerox.com (Bill Fenner), terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert), scrappy@ki.net, jdp@polstra.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Sockets question... Message-ID: <199611181718.RAA19995@right.PCS> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SV4.3.95.961118153010.8195A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp>; from Michael Hancock on Nov 18, 1996 16:02:11 %2B0900 References: <96Nov15.113305pst.177557@crevenia.parc.xerox.com> <Pine.SV4.3.95.961118153010.8195A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Hancock writes: > On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Bill Fenner wrote: > > > 4.4BSD introduced the MSG_WAITALL flag, so if you use recv() or any of its > > friends you can ask for your whole request to be performed. This is, of > > course, not portable, and MSG_WAITALL won't even do the trick if your > > request is larger than the socket's high water mark (e.g. SO_RECVBUF). > > > > UnixWare 2.1.1 now supports this, I'll have to check Solaris. Maybe it's > more portable than you think. Sequent PTX/4.1.X also supports MSG_WAITALL. As a matter of fact, the manual pages for socket(2) and recv(2) look nearly identical to FreeBSD. -- Jonathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611181718.RAA19995>