Tom,
> A feature that is exercised via setsockopt is probably fairly safe,
> since you can check for failure of the setsockopt call and then do
> it the old way. MSG_NOSIGNAL is a recv() flag, no?
It's a flag to send().
> The question is whether you could expect that the recv() would fail if
> it had any unrecognized flags. Not sure if I trust that. SO_NOSIGPIPE
> seems safer.
Yep, a once-off test would be better. However, I don't seem to have a
NOSIGPIPE sockopt here :(
Cheers,
Jeremy
