http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8514
------- Additional Comments From citizenr@gmail.com 2007-27-05 13:13 ------- Created an attachment (id=6491) --> (http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=6491&action=view) new testcase
windows sock.c:1658:getsockname returned : 33403, should be 33403 sock.c:1672:Binding second socket failed as expected, thats good: 10048 sock.c:1676:Failed to call getsockname: 10022 sock.c:1677:getsockname returned : 33403, should be 33403
wine sock.c:1658:getsockname returned : 33403, should be 33403 sock.c:1672:Binding second socket failed as expected, thats good: 10048 sock.c:1684:getsockname returned : 0, should be 33403
wine passes the getsockname call to unbinded socket zeroing sockaddr structure - this is the other way arround than I was thinking previously (I suspected windows to pass, wine to fail).