RE: [xml] Building on Win32

["Igor Zlatkovic" <izlatkovic daenet de>]

Hello.

> I dispute your assertion that I corrected this wrongly.

Good ;-) I am happy whenever people give me the chance to revise what I
do.

> First point.  The test reading
>       #if defined(EAGAIN) && EAGAIN != EWOULDBLOCK
> was taken from elsewhere in the same file.  EAGAIN is a SYSVish error
> code whereas EWOULDBLOCK is a BSDish code.  Not all systems 
> might define
> EAGAIN (though this is unlikely).  The wise thing is to check 
> for it - at
> worst it is unnecessary, however it never hurts.  Also, on 
> some systems
> EAGAIN and EWOULDBLOCK are the same value (e.g. Linux), so 
> the test makes
> sense anyway and it might as well be the one elsewhere in the code.

Okay, this one holds, as far I am concerned.
 
> Second point.  On WIN 32 sockets are implemented in a 
> seperate DLL and they
> have their own set of error numbers defined in winsock2.h 
> which are entirely
> unrelated to the codes in errno.h which are for the C runtime 
> library.  The
> error code from socket_errno() cannot be compared against 
> values from errno.h
> on WIN 32 although they can on Un*x.

I am now recalling that I even wrote something about this in the
comments of he patch which is attached to the first 'Win32 Facelift'
post. Incredible, how fast I am forgetting things. Back then I had a
conflict between ENAMETOOLONG and ENOTEMPTY.

> Finally on WIN32 select() is provided by winsock, not the C runtime so
> comparing against errno after calling select is wrong anyway 
> - it should
> be socket_errno() - and this value cannot be compared with EINTR on
> WIN 32 (see above).

Perfectly right. Well, I must say I was a bit too fast with the
assertion about your patch being right or not. Another five negative
points for me. Now, either forgive me, or let me die a warrior, by my
own blade, in honour.

If it is OK, I would retract my tasteless assertion and claim the patch
you submitted is OK. I shall undo what I did to have errno.h included.

Ciao
Igor