From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Mar 29 10:47: 0 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAC1E37B71F for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:46:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nate@yogotech.com) Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (nomad.yogotech.com [206.127.123.131]) by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA06778; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:46:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA12198; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:46:55 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate) From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15043.33567.94042.80830@nomad.yogotech.com> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:46:55 -0700 (MST) To: Brian Matthews Cc: "'nate@yogotech.com'" , "'freebsd-stable@freebsd.org'" Subject: RE: Threads vs. blocking sockets In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) 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. Right, but in threaded systems, there are no 'blocking' sockets. You have to think differently when doing threaded applications. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message