Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 23:08:41 -0400 From: "J.R. Oldroyd" <fbsd@opal.com> To: Brian Buchanan <bwb@holo.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: async connect problem Message-ID: <20050506030841.GL51983@linwhf.opal.com> In-Reply-To: <20050505193739.Y36831@thought.holo.org> References: <20050506023318.GK51983@linwhf.opal.com> <20050505193739.Y36831@thought.holo.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 05, 19:39, Brian Buchanan wrote: > On Thu, 5 May 2005, J.R. Oldroyd wrote: > > >Isn't our behaviour wrong... > > > >On 6-current, the program below prints: > > connect: Connection refused > > > >Shouldn't it print: > > connect: Operation now in progress > > No, that's the correct behavior. The system was able to satisfy your > request without blocking because you were attempting a connection to the > loopback, so connect() returned immediately with errno == ECONNREFUSED. > > - Brian You are correct, it does return EINPROGRESS when using a non-loopback address. Perhaps I should ask a different question. Subsequent code to check the socket's status, something like: int n; socklen_t intsize = sizeof(int); getsockopt(f, SOL_SOCKET, SO_ERROR, (void*)&n, &intsize); if (n) ... which works (with suitable cast adjustments) on Solaris, Linux, Darwin, and yes, even on Windows, doesn't work here. I have an alternative test that uses getpeername(), but I'm surprised at the difference in behavior. -jr
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050506030841.GL51983>