Skip to content

Conversation

@cpetig
Copy link
Contributor

@cpetig cpetig commented Feb 1, 2026

No description provided.

@cpetig
Copy link
Contributor Author

cpetig commented Feb 1, 2026

Last part of #711

Copy link
Collaborator

@alexcrichton alexcrichton left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

After thinking about this and #725 and #729, I think that TCP/UDP might be a good case for having wasip2/wasip3 all defined in the same file. There's subtle interactions with how these methods all work and having it all in one place I think will be beneficial. The lion's share of the internals here are all shared and the main differences are the I/O read/write bits, and those can be shepherded out to read/write mostly. Given that WDYT about moving wasip2_tcp.c to maybe tcp.c and going from there?

errno = parse_err;
return -1;
}

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Around here, could this return -1 + ENOTSUPP if blocking is set to false? I think that'll need special handling here to ensure that case works.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants