Mailing-List: contact dev-help@perl.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <425AB43A.7020207@stason.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:30:34 -0400
From: Stas Bekman <stas@stason.org>
Organization: Hope, Humanized
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050322
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Randy Kobes <randy@theoryx5.uwinnipeg.ca>
Cc: Steve Hay <steve.hay@uk.radan.com>, dev@perl.apache.org
Subject: Re: Test failure on Win32: t/error/runtime.t
References: <424A7F11.4000404@uk.radan.com> <424AFC49.6030909@stason.org>
 <424BB294.8080401@uk.radan.com> <4256BA65.4060309@stason.org>
 <Pine.LNX.4.56.0504100952270.3384@theoryx5.uwinnipeg.ca>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.56.0504100952270.3384@theoryx5.uwinnipeg.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Randy Kobes wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Stas Bekman wrote:
> 
> 
>>eval block has failed: APR::Socket::recv: (730035) A
>>non-blocking socket operation could not be completed
>>immediately.  at
>>C:\\apache2\\source\\mod_perl-2.0\\t\\response/TestError/runtime.pm
>>line 156 at
>>C:\\apache2\\source\\mod_perl-2.0\\t\\response/TestError/runtime.pm
>>line 114.\n
>>
>>1) I suppose 730035 is not APR::Const::EAGAIN, so it
>>doesn't retry as the test goes. Or does it? Try printing:
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
>>so, it looks again the same issue. You are probably
>>getting a different $@ under windows.
>>
>>I guess we could find out what is that constant, or try to
>>use a different operation that will certainly fail and
>>it'll give the same error constant on all platforms.
>>Suggestions are welcome.
> 
> 
> You're right that the problem is is that a different $@
> (730035) is obtained, rather than APR::Const::EAGAIN (which
> is 11 on Win32). On linux, I get 11 for both $@ and
> APR::Const::EAGAIN on this test.
> 
> I think getting 730035 can be understood as follows:
> in apr_errorno.h, there's a macro
> 
> #define APR_STATUS_IS_EAGAIN(s)         ((s) == APR_EAGAIN \
>                 || (s) == APR_OS_START_SYSERR + ERROR_NO_DATA \
>                 || (s) == APR_OS_START_SYSERR + SOCEWOULDBLOCK \
>                 || (s) == APR_OS_START_SYSERR + ERROR_LOCK_VIOLATION)
> 
> 
> which is the suggested way to test for EAGAIN. On Win32,
> I believe that SOCEWOULDBLOCK is returned in this test,
> and following through the definitions in apr_errorno.h:
> =============================================================
> use constant APR_OS_START_ERROR => 20000;
> use constant APR_OS_ERRSPACE_SIZE => 50000;
> use constant APR_OS_START_STATUS =>
>   (APR_OS_START_ERROR + APR_OS_ERRSPACE_SIZE);
> use constant APR_OS_START_USERERR =>
>   (APR_OS_START_STATUS + APR_OS_ERRSPACE_SIZE);
> use constant APR_OS_START_USEERR => APR_OS_START_USERERR;
> use constant APR_OS_START_CANONERR =>
>   (APR_OS_START_USERERR + (APR_OS_ERRSPACE_SIZE * 10));
> use constant APR_OS_START_EAIERR =>
>   (APR_OS_START_CANONERR + APR_OS_ERRSPACE_SIZE);
> use constant APR_OS_START_SYSERR =>
>   (APR_OS_START_EAIERR + APR_OS_ERRSPACE_SIZE);
> use constant SOCBASEERR => 10000;
> use constant SOCEWOULDBLOCK => (SOCBASEERR+35);
> ===================================================================
> one then finds APR_OS_START_SYSERR + SOCEWOULDBLOCK is
> indeed 730035, which would cause APR_STATUS_IS_EAGAIN(s) to
> be true. In the sense of APR_STATUS_IS_EAGAIN(), then, I
> think the test as written should be considered as having
> passed on Win32.
> 
> So what we could do is, instead of using APR::Const::EAGAIN,
> put in a APR_STATUS_IS_EAGAIN() sub based on the above
> macro. This has the downside of requiring all the above
> constants to be defined within the test, as they're not
> available within APR::Const::*.

Thanks for the research, Randy.

How about a simpler solution. Create a new APR::Status class and have 
IS_EAGAIN function in it. No need to load any constants, as it'll be on 
the C level. Notice that this issue is essential for all uses, not just to 
make the test pass.

Later we may need to add other IS_* status checking subs. I see there are 
quite a lot of those.

-- 
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman            JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/     mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org   http://ticketmaster.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org