From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Noah Lavine Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Bug in Guile's Posix Networking Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 16:00:54 -0500 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1297544477 27177 80.91.229.12 (12 Feb 2011 21:01:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 21:01:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 12 22:01:12 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PoMad-00063U-MU for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 22:01:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36644 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PoMac-0003aI-UH for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 16:01:11 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35939 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PoMaP-0003ZD-6y for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 16:00:59 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PoMaO-0007GL-2s for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 16:00:57 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-yw0-f41.google.com ([209.85.213.41]:56763) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PoMaN-0007GF-RP for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 16:00:55 -0500 Original-Received: by ywj3 with SMTP id 3so1734266ywj.0 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 13:00:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=jS2sdj2WgPr1w2bjwBg5mc41KjSXizBKbaHl5Z+z6sk=; b=FdDQw88aRaoAiV7pwm9XEURFwSl9okfVj6hjDmX/gxjKx1IkKpeA1vkAJck8E00l/Y RrreN9d7WjAkIDZ50yV4lS0fgrs8GkDZt2IN350IcYn4vkwj5sUBapaXifD34cx0jdIx qs0G5S+8ilq1DovZWODKwjeUQxh9TfefSNaMU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=n6N2hBr5p6ukY3I/wYqyTmIzsXRebTdE7ct2S0JCoEkZ86pDKy/Q8BYS2RzMIu17qR v4ZVR8Wir/Ck/Ko+XfaZb4cySCvtj3t4K6/+YLsT8A0NymevpXJae69hD8YriQcMwQ4I 5kBTJS+m2NnH8M3/0Ptt6C0vep/D8Zxp7d/n4= Original-Received: by 10.151.40.14 with SMTP id s14mr2421672ybj.273.1297544454997; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 13:00:54 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.147.40.5 with HTTP; Sat, 12 Feb 2011 13:00:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Google-Sender-Auth: 22Wk92vjyz1WDhfH25YeBJfiGtE X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.213.41 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:11580 Archived-At: I tried the test program (define addr (inet-aton "127.0.0.1")) (define sockaddr (make-socket-address AF_INET addr 8080)) (define sock (socket PF_INET SOCK_STREAM 0)) (setsockopt sock SOL_SOCKET SO_REUSEADDR 1) (bind sock sockaddr) And got the same error. I also tried changing the port to 9000 and it still happened. Noah On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Andy Wingo wrote: > On Sat 12 Feb 2011 21:33, Noah Lavine writes: > >>> Does guile --listen work? =A0It appears to use a slightly different way= to >>> set up the sockaddr. >> >> Oddly enough, it worked the first time I tried it (at least enough to >> get to a REPL - I didn't try to netcat over to it), but failed the >> second and third times. > > Would that be an SO_REUSEADDR-related issue? > > Musing, > > Andy > -- > http://wingolog.org/ >