On 12/08/2009 13:54, Jon TURNEY wrote: > Hmmm... but if it's really the size of the sockname argument which is > causing the accept() to fail, this would be a bug in cygwin's accept() > implementation, as it's supposed to truncate the data written to the > sockname, rather than fail if it won't fit [1]. If that actually is the > case, since we don't actually use the peer address here, the code as > stands is correct (if a little odd). >> I suppose I need to write a small test case to look at this... >> [1] http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/accept.html A couple of small programs which hopefully demonstrate this problem. (As is, the connection fails, but uncommenting the alternate definition of cliaddr in listener.c allows it to work) I'd hazard a guess that perhaps this is because the underlying winsock accept() doesn't have this truncate behaviour and considers a too-small address_len an error. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: connector.c URL: <http://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/attachments/20090812/00c074b7/attachment.c> -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: listener.c URL: <http://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/attachments/20090812/00c074b7/attachment-0001.c> -------------- next part -------------- -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple