Ahh… Nice to see old faces again!
I saw that posting on the “medium” level but it, like a quite a few of other
postings, just died off with no response.
I don’t mind paying for a “medium level” of support assuming I can get
some! I typically used only QUICS with a few occasional emails to
Steve or John when all hell broke loose on a problem they were
I can also see why it is hard to get responses with a large newsgroup
like “os” that is currently showing 4000 postings It took a little
on how stuff was partitioned but “.fsys” “.kernel” “.util” “.net” “.tcpip”
a lot of sense and it was much easier to go see if somebody else had
the problem. They were also the “pay to post” (I hated points!) groups
that typically had the experienced developers from both QSSL and the
outside… ah, the good old days.
Mario - we need to catch up sometime!
Dean Douthat wrote in message <3B6FF819.FAC567C4@faac.com>…
Jay & Mario & QSSL:
What ever happened to the “medium” level of support that was “being worked
some months back? I asked this in another newgroup but have heard nothing
Mario Charest wrote:
“Jay Hogg” <> email@example.com> > wrote in message
news:9kor2h$2n0$> firstname.lastname@example.org> …
Is there a trick to getting answers? Its been 5 days now and I’m still
used to QUICS where we got answers (or at least an acknowledgment)
in a day or two… and right now QNX sales is working on us for why
we need to go with Nto instead of another OS!
Things have change Jay. For the moment to get the same level of response
(well not quite) you remember from QUICS you need to have Premium
Back to my question in this posting (there are 3 others posted also
don’t have any answers on - 1 is critical since I keep dumping io-net!)
MSG_NOSIGNAL for recv() and send() is listed as both BSD4.4 and
POSIX 1003.1g draft.
Where is it since QNX6 claims compliance with the POSIX standard and
it is based on BSD?
I realize the importance in the Linux world because of some major
problems in the past with EPIPE arriving before all the data was read,
I realize I can ignore the signal, but I would still like an answer!
Jay Hogg wrote in message <9kajq8$eaq$> email@example.com> >…
Looking for options or if there is an issue…
I’m porting the Linux UPnP SDK (originally from Intel, now on
and have run into a usage of send(…) to a socket that is specifying
flag of MSG_NOSIGNAL.
The usage of this is to prevent an EPIPE signal from being generated
but alas this isn’t supported on Nto. The window of opportunity for
this issue is very small but since it has been explicitly coded it
it has probably been run into.