Build failed in Jenkins: FreeBSD_HEAD-tests2 #1035

See -- [...truncated 2446 lines...] lib/libnv/dnv_tests:dnvlist_take_string__present -> passed [0.017s] lib/libnv/nv_tests:nvlist_add_binary__single_insert -> passed [0.019s] lib/libnv/nv_test

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 08:53:05AM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote: > At least I'm inclined to ponder it. Apparently nobody else is. People > running servers with more GB of ram than grains of sand on the beach > won't care about things like 64k buffers used by /bin/sh to read a line > of text, and all

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

In message <5554b8d6.1010...@mu.org>, Alfred Perlstein writes: >Shouldn't most of these be using st.st_blksize ? We had a long discussion about that back when GEOM was young and the conclusionis that st_blksize doesn't tell you anything useful and generally does the wrong thing, in parti

Jenkins build is back to stable : FreeBSD_HEAD-tests2 #1033

See ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

In message <1431615185.1221.57.ca...@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore writes: >I think we've got differing interpretations of what BUFSIZ is for. > >IMO, the one correct use of BUFSIZ outside of libc is "if you are going >to call setbuf() the buffer you pass must be BUFSIZ bytes long." > >Over th

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

On 5/14/15 2:23 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote: On May 14, 2015, at 1:06, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: In message <20150514075316.gy37...@funkthat.com>, John-Mark Gurney writes: Poul-Henning Kamp wrote this message on Thu, May 14, 2015 at 07:42 +: In message <20150514072155.gt3

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

On Thu, 2015-05-14 at 07:42 +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > In message <20150514072155.gt37...@funkthat.com>, John-Mark Gurney writes: > > >Since you apprently missed my original reply, I said that we shouldn't > >abuse BUFSIZ for this work, and that it should be changed in mdXhl.c...

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

In message <72720ea2-c251-40b9-9ec0-702c07d5e...@gmail.com>, Garrett Cooper writes: >Until performance has been characterized on 32-bit vs >64-bit architectures, blanket changing a value doesn't make sense. First time I saw benchmarks which showed improved performance from a larger BUF

Re: [RFC] Replace gnu groff in base by heirloom doctools

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 02:31:55AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On May 13, 2015, at 17:02, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I plan to work in replacing GNU groff for FreeBSD 11.0 in base by heirloom > > doctools. > > … > > Hi Bapt, > Do you have a list of items that require

Re: [RFC] Replace gnu groff in base by heirloom doctools

On May 13, 2015, at 17:02, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > Hi, > > I plan to work in replacing GNU groff for FreeBSD 11.0 in base by heirloom > doctools. … Hi Bapt, Do you have a list of items that require doctools [if groff isn’t present]? Thanks! -NGie signature.asc Description: Messa

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

On May 14, 2015, at 1:01, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > In message <1431542835.1221.30.ca...@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore writes: >> On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 11:13 -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > >> As I've already pointed out, BUFSIZ appears in the >> base code over 2000 times. Where is the

Re: [RFC] Replace gnu groff in base by heirloom doctools

On 14 May 2015, at 10:24, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:13:18AM +0100, David Chisnall wrote: >> On 14 May 2015, at 09:59, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 09:55:19AM +0100, David Chisnall wrote: On 14 May 2015, at 01:02, Baptiste Daroussi

Re: [RFC] Replace gnu groff in base by heirloom doctools

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:13:18AM +0100, David Chisnall wrote: > On 14 May 2015, at 09:59, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 09:55:19AM +0100, David Chisnall wrote: > >> On 14 May 2015, at 01:02, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >>> > >>> - it is partially CDDL partially BSD

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

On May 14, 2015, at 1:06, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > In message <20150514075316.gy37...@funkthat.com>, John-Mark Gurney writes: >> Poul-Henning Kamp wrote this message on Thu, May 14, 2015 at 07:42 +: >>> >>> In message <20150514072155.gt37...@funkthat.com>, John-Mark Gurn

Re: [RFC] Replace gnu groff in base by heirloom doctools

On 14 May 2015, at 09:59, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 09:55:19AM +0100, David Chisnall wrote: >> On 14 May 2015, at 01:02, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>> >>> - it is partially CDDL partially BSD license. >> >> We currently have a WITHOUT_CDDL knob that some people use.

Re: [RFC] Replace gnu groff in base by heirloom doctools

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 09:55:19AM +0100, David Chisnall wrote: > On 14 May 2015, at 01:02, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > > - it is partially CDDL partially BSD license. > > We currently have a WITHOUT_CDDL knob that some people use. If we don’t > build the CDDL parts, what will break? > Ex

Re: [RFC] Replace gnu groff in base by heirloom doctools

On 14 May 2015, at 01:02, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > - it is partially CDDL partially BSD license. We currently have a WITHOUT_CDDL knob that some people use. If we don’t build the CDDL parts, what will break? David ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.o

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

In message <20150514075316.gy37...@funkthat.com>, John-Mark Gurney writes: >Poul-Henning Kamp wrote this message on Thu, May 14, 2015 at 07:42 +: >> >> In message <20150514072155.gt37...@funkthat.com>, John-Mark Gurney writes: >> >> >Since you apprently missed my original rep

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

In message <1431542835.1221.30.ca...@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore writes: >On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 11:13 -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote: >As I've already pointed out, BUFSIZ appears in the >base code over 2000 times. Where is the analysis of the impact an 8x >change is going to have on all thos

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote this message on Thu, May 14, 2015 at 07:42 +: > > In message <20150514072155.gt37...@funkthat.com>, John-Mark Gurney writes: > > >Since you apprently missed my original reply, I said that we shouldn't > >abuse BUFSIZ for this work, and that it should be changed

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

In message <20150514072155.gt37...@funkthat.com>, John-Mark Gurney writes: >Since you apprently missed my original reply, I said that we shouldn't >abuse BUFSIZ for this work, and that it should be changed in mdXhl.c... Say what ? BUFSIZ is used entirely appropriately in MDXFileChunk():

Jenkins build became unstable: FreeBSD_HEAD-tests2 #1032

See ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

David Chisnall wrote this message on Wed, May 13, 2015 at 09:27 +0100: > On 13 May 2015, at 09:03, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > > > Poul-Henning Kamp wrote this message on Tue, May 12, 2015 at 06:31 +: > >> > >> In message <20150512032307.gp37...@funkthat.com>, John-Mark Gurney writes

Re: Increase BUFSIZ to 8192

Ian Lepore wrote this message on Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:47 -0600: > On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 11:13 -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > Adrian Chadd wrote this message on Wed, May 13, 2015 at 08:34 -0700: > > > The reason I ask about "why is it faster?" is because for embedded-y > > > things with low R