| |||||||||||||
Five Pitfalls of Linux Sockets Programming (developerWorks)Five Pitfalls of Linux Sockets Programming (developerWorks)Posted Sep 21, 2005 15:29 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (guest, #14462)In reply to: Five Pitfalls of Linux Sockets Programming (developerWorks) by RobSeace Parent article: Five Pitfalls of Linux Sockets Programming (developerWorks) EFAULT seems appropriate, yes; SIGSEGV would be disappointing. Though, looking up a few send(2) manpages I cannot really conclude that NULL would be an invalid address (I consulted a Solaris manpage before my first comment * bangs head on table * and apparently Solaris doesn't care about EFAULT at all ;-). But it's trivial to find out of course what Linux does in this case, I'll let you know unless you beat me to it. ;-)
(Log in to post comments)
Five Pitfalls of Linux Sockets Programming (developerWorks) Posted Sep 21, 2005 16:24 UTC (Wed) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link] It does indeed fail with EFAULT on both Linux (2.4.x, at least) and QNX4.2x(the only other system I have access to, at the moment)... On any system where it didn't fail so, I'd expect the seg-fault... It's the only other rational choice...
Five Pitfalls of Linux Sockets Programming (developerWorks) Posted Sep 21, 2005 17:12 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] Alright, common sense rules. ;-) Cheers Rob!
|
|||||||||||||