From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,20324ebb3709048c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Subject: Re: Terminate program in Ada95
Date: 2000/11/27
Message-ID: <87itp92kd9.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 698387215
References: <975328139.872809@edh3> <3A226987.325D7B24@mail.com>
Organization: Enyo's not your organization
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-11-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Mats Weber <matsw@mail.com> writes:

> If it is UNIX or UNIX-like (which it probably is if you are using
> sockets) then you can close the sockets with pending I/O operations from
> outside the task doing the socket I/O. This will make any pending
> opertion on the socket exit with an error code that is hopefully handled
> in the task.

This might introduce a race condition because the file descriptor
used by the socket might be reused soon.  I think the shutdown socket
operation is better than simply closing the socket under these
circumstances (it will cause subsequent operations on the socket to
fail, but doesn't release the file descriptor at once).