From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Mar 29 10:45:39 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mail01.actzero.com (cpe-24-221-167-196.ca.sprintbbd.net [24.221.167.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27AA237B71B for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:45:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blm@actzero.com) Received: by cpe-24-221-167-196.ca.sprintbbd.net with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:44:19 -0800 Message-ID: From: Brian Matthews To: "'nate@yogotech.com'" Cc: "'freebsd-stable@freebsd.org'" Subject: RE: Threads vs. blocking sockets Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:44:19 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG | > However, I would then expect the threaded versions of the data | > transfer calls (send*, etc.) to loop over the actual system calls. | Why? Do other OS's not require you to check your return values, to make | sure that the call sent everything you expected it to? In my experience (on 4 or 5 Unix variants), with a blocking socket either everything is sent or an error (or EOF on recv*) is returned. In fact FreeBSD also does this, unless you link with libc_r instead of libc. Brian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message