Berkley sockets

[Alan M. Carroll]

In article <1991Mar14.193619.21766 at m.cs.uiuc.edu>, carroll at cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll) writes:
> In article <1991Mar14.122151.21216 at virtech.uucp>, cpcahil at virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes:
> > dcvint at lion.uwaterloo.ca (Dee Vint) writes:
> > 
> > >Does anybody know of an implementation of Berkely sockets for SCO (or any other)
> > > System V unix system?
> > I have used ISC's version and it appears
> > to work fine (i.e. I have had no problems porting socket code between 
> > my system and other BSD systems).
> 
> A problem that I have had (2.0.2) with ISC is that if I have a socket
> that is a passive socket, and I poll() on it, waiting for input,
> poll() does _not_ return when another process connects to the socket

Thanks to a totally excellent system dude at ISC, I now have my code
working under 386ix (2.0.2). The bottom line is that under 386ix,
passive sockets indicate a _priority_ message when a connection is
made, not a normal input waiting. By changing my code to take this
into account, it works. However, I'd say that this does count as an
incompatability, since on a number of other OS's, passive sockets
indicate input waiting when a connection is made (in particular, this
is the case under SunOS for both select() and poll()).

-- 
Alan M. Carroll                "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired"
Epoch Development Team                 - Susan
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana    ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!cs.uiuc.edu!carroll