Re: [PATCH v2] implement full-blown select(2) for winsock

[Paolo Bonzini]

> How about adding an assertion like this?
>
> +   if (!timeout && rc == 0)
> +     abort ();

But wouldn't this trigger in your case, thus aborting select() and poll()?

> But I am afraid to propose this as a fix, because this is busy-looping, and
> the purpose of select() is to avoid busy-looping.

True...  I found this:

> The code above fails (or rather, WaitForSingleObject fails) when the 
> above is run by two threads, not two processes. I originally tested it 
> in two completely separate executables. Now that I want to run this 
> within two threads in the same Windows DLL, WaitForSingleObject doesn't 
> actually do any waiting.

Is it your case?

What about using a socketpair instead?  We can implement that for
Windows using TCP/IP sockets.

> For reference, here is the code that is in use in clisp to detect whether
> reading from a handle would hang or return immediately. The deal with
> ENABLE_LINE_INPUT is that PeekConsoleInput will say "yes there is something
> is available" as soon as the user has started typing a line, but ReadFile
> will hang until the user presses Return.

Yes, it makes sense to add it to the select/poll emulations.  I didn't
know about ENABLE_LINE_INPUT.

>       {
>         DWORD nbytes;
>         if (PeekNamedPipe(fd,NULL,0,NULL,&nbytes,NULL)) { /* input pipe */
>           if (nbytes > 0)
>             return 3;
>           else
>             return 0;
>         } else if (GetLastError()==ERROR_BROKEN_PIPE) { /* EOF reached */
>           return 2;

... and this could also be used to emulate POLLHUP on pipes, which is
pretty cool because even Cygwin fails on that.

Unfortunately HP TestDrive will be discontinued tomorrow, and I won't
have access to Windows anymore again. :-(

Paolo