Re: 2 instances of Xwin

[Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu>]

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Alexander Gottwald wrote:

> Amr Mohamed Roushdi wrote:
>
> > Hi Alex it is me again . I am enclosing the strace fot the 1st instance
> > good and the 2nd instance which blew out .
> > thks for ur help
>
> from tracegood
>
>   310 2041721 [main] xwin 2284 cygwin_socket: 6 = socket (2, 2, 0)
>   429 2042150 [main] xwin 2284 cygwin_setsockopt: setsockopt optval=1
>   323 2042473 [main] xwin 2284 cygwin_setsockopt: 0 = setsockopt (6, 65535, 20 (SO_BROADCAST), 0x22EF84, 4)
>   672 2043145 [main] xwin 2284 cygwin_bind: 0 = bind (6, 0x769BD0, 16)
>
> from trace
>
>   304 2658029 [main] xwin 2312 cygwin_socket: 6 = socket (2, 2, 0)
>   321 2658350 [main] xwin 2312 cygwin_setsockopt: setsockopt optval=1
>   311 2658661 [main] xwin 2312 cygwin_setsockopt: 0 = setsockopt (6, 65535, 20 (SO_BROADCAST), 0x22EF84, 4)
>   449 2659110 [main] xwin 2312 __set_winsock_errno: bind:477 - winsock error 10048 -> errno 112
>   306 2659416 [main] xwin 2312 cygwin_bind: -1 = bind (6, 0x769BD0, 16)
>
> the winsock error 10048 is WSAEADDRINUSE which means another program is using
> the port. Up to this bind the logs are nearly identical (only differs in
> process ids, the :5 vs :10 and some small differences with pointers and
> handles returned from windows).

Doesn't X bind to different ports depending on the display number?  Could
it be that the X+10 port is in use, but X+5 isn't?  Or am I completely
confused?
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor@watson.ibm.com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route
to the bathroom is a major career booster."  -- Patrick Naughton