On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 02:12:55 PM m...@freebsd.org wrote:
I seem to recall a thread earlier on this limitation, but looking at
actual libc/stdio sources, the 4 year old check for open(2)'s fd being
less than SHRT_MAX is still there. I thought I saw a patch to change
this to an int,
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 7:44 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 02:12:55 PM m...@freebsd.org wrote:
I seem to recall a thread earlier on this limitation, but looking at
actual libc/stdio sources, the 4 year old check for open(2)'s fd being
less than
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com wrote:
On 1 November 2012 10:40, Ian Lepore free...@damnhippie.dyndns.org wrote:
On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 11:12 -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
I seem to recall a thread earlier on this limitation, but looking at
actual libc/stdio
On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 11:12 -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
I seem to recall a thread earlier on this limitation, but looking at
actual libc/stdio sources, the 4 year old check for open(2)'s fd being
less than SHRT_MAX is still there. I thought I saw a patch to change
this to an int, but it's
On 1 November 2012 10:40, Ian Lepore free...@damnhippie.dyndns.org wrote:
On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 11:12 -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
I seem to recall a thread earlier on this limitation, but looking at
actual libc/stdio sources, the 4 year old check for open(2)'s fd being
less than SHRT_MAX is
I seem to recall a thread earlier on this limitation, but looking at
actual libc/stdio sources, the 4 year old check for open(2)'s fd being
less than SHRT_MAX is still there. I thought I saw a patch to change
this to an int, but it's not in the tree. Was this in a PR or a
mailing list thread or
