macdonal@mips2.cr.bull.com (Rindress MacDonald) (02/14/91)
Hi,
Has anybody tried compiling Jim Kelly's SCO patches with TCPCONN
instead of STREAMSCONN? I am having no luck in getting this to
work, maybe someone can give me some advice on why I get this
message when I execute xinit.
...{stuff deleted}
XIO: fatal IO error 90 (Operation would block) on X server ""
after 0 requests (0 known processed) with 0 events remaining.
The only thing I can think of is that EWOULDBLOCK is not
defined properly, but I'am not quite sure what he ment about
"When you compile with sco and TCPCONN you must leave
EWOULDBLOCK alone because that is what SCO sockets will return."
Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Thanks,
Rindress
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Rindress MacDonald
Email address: macdonal@mips2.cr.bull.com
Phone number: (508)294-2797
Company: Bull Worldwide Information Systems
Company address: 300 Concord Rd. Billerica MA 01821
Mail Stop: MA30/826A
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------roell@informatik.tu-muenchen.de (Thomas Roell) (02/15/91)
> The only thing I can think of is that EWOULDBLOCK is not > defined properly, but I'am not quite sure what he ment about > "When you compile with sco and TCPCONN you must leave > EWOULDBLOCK alone because that is what SCO sockets will return." > Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. The answer is *very* simpel: AT&T redefined EWOULDBLOCK & ERANGE for use with STREAMS to EAGAIN & EMSGSIZE. This simply fails for SCO's TCP/IP. All you have to be prepared for both sets of return-values. - Thomas -- _______________________________________________________________________________ E-Mail (domain): roell@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.de UUCP (if above fails): roell@tumult.{uucp | informatik.tu-muenchen.de} famous last words: "diskspace - the final frontier..."