On 4/6/2010 2:48 PM, Michael D. Berger wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:37:27 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> On 4/6/2010 2:16 PM, Michael D. Berger wrote:
>>> On CentOS 5.4,
>>> Linux 2.6.18-164.6.1.el5 #1 SMP Tue Nov 3 16:18:27 EST 2009
>>> i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
>>>
>>> In man 2 send I find:
>>>
>>> The send() call may be used only when the socket is in a
>>> connected state (so that the intended recipient is known). The
>>> only difference between send() and write() is the presence of
>>> flags. With zero flags parameter, send() is equivalent
>>> to write().
>>>
>>> In some complex server software, if the client disconnects:
>>> send: delivers errno == ECONNRESET
>>> but
>>> write: crashes the server process.
>>>
>>> So it is not really equivalent. Any thoughts on this?
>>
>> Are you sure it isn't the normal signal associated with a write when the
>> other end closes first that is crashing the process?
>
> No, I.m not sure. I found that send also sometimes crashes it.
> Sorry for the misleading comment.
They should be equivalent - if the other end closes first, you'll get a
SIGPIPE, which by default will kill the process. If you want to keep
running you have to handle or ignore the signal.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com