On 6/25/06, Felix Schulte <felix.schulte at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/25/06, Casper.Dik at sun.com <Casper.Dik at sun.com> wrote:
> > This seems wrong; personally I think we should rip out any replacement
> > for system libraries; such duplication leads to more code which needs
> > to be maintained. This includes replacements for <stdio.h>.
> There would be no need to replace it if the stdio implementation in
> Solaris would be sane, however since it sucks a faster, non-sucking
> replacement would be cool.
I'd like to apologize for that comment. I did not intend to offend anyone.
I only like to point out that stdio in Solaris has some unique
limitations - only 255 file handles can be opened in 32bit
applications and only 65535 for 64bit applications, compared to glibc
the libc stdio is slow and the whole source code is somewhat infested
with complex code to maintain the backwards compatibility to old
behaviour.
--
_ Felix Schulte
_|_|_ mailto:felix.schulte at gmail.com
(0 0)
ooO--(_)--Ooo
