On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 10:19:52AM -0700, Raymond, David wrote:
> Thanks, that is helpful.
>
> It is now clear to me that the default on OpenBSD for SSIZE_MAX is
> 2^31 - 1 or greater. However, I still run into problems on writes to
> a TCP/IP socket with sizes exceeding something like 32000
Thanks, that is helpful.
It is now clear to me that the default on OpenBSD for SSIZE_MAX is
2^31 - 1 or greater. However, I still run into problems on writes to
a TCP/IP socket with sizes exceeding something like 32000 bytes
(probably 2^15 -1).
Is it possible that TCP sockets have a smaller
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 09:35:38AM +, cho...@jtan.com wrote:
> Raymond, David writes:
> > I am confused about SSIZE_MAX and read(2)/write(2). The POSIX
> > SSIZE_MAX is something like 2^15 -1. This seems to be a real
> > limitation when writing to a TCP/IP socket, as I learned from
> >
tor. 16. jan. 2020 kl. 14:52 skrev Raymond, David :
>
> Hmm
>
> Thought I found a 2^15 -1 version of SSIZE_MAX in the includes, but I
> guess I was mistaken.
Not necessarily. What you have probably seen is _POSIX_SSIZE_MAX
(which is almost literally
what you wrote in your first post), defined
Yes, my code deals with the short reads and writes.
On 1/16/20, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 06:48:30AM -0700, Raymond, David wrote:
>
>> Hmm
>>
>> Thought I found a 2^15 -1 version of SSIZE_MAX in the includes, but I
>> guess I was mistaken.
>>
>> The real issue is whether
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 06:48:30AM -0700, Raymond, David wrote:
> Hmm
>
> Thought I found a 2^15 -1 version of SSIZE_MAX in the includes, but I
> guess I was mistaken.
>
> The real issue is whether doing write(2) to a TCP/IP socket bigger
> than 2^15 - 1 bytes causes problems. I am not
Hmm
Thought I found a 2^15 -1 version of SSIZE_MAX in the includes, but I
guess I was mistaken.
The real issue is whether doing write(2) to a TCP/IP socket bigger
than 2^15 - 1 bytes causes problems. I am not very experienced in
this area.
Dave Raymond
On 1/15/20, Bryan Steele wrote:
>>
On 16/1/20 7:35 pm, cho...@jtan.com wrote:
> I would guess this is part of the reason why ssize_t was invented
> - so that half of the numeric range could be wasted in order for a
> function to be able to return -1, and/or ridiculous notions of
> symmetry.
Actually it is used with fseek… in
Raymond, David writes:
> I am confused about SSIZE_MAX and read(2)/write(2). The POSIX
> SSIZE_MAX is something like 2^15 -1. This seems to be a real
> limitation when writing to a TCP/IP socket, as I learned from
> experience. However, much larger reads and writes seem to be possible
> to
Raymond, David wrote:
> The POSIX SSIZE_MAX is something like 2^15 -1.
I doubt that, you better backtrack a couple of steps.
> I am confused about SSIZE_MAX and read(2)/write(2). The POSIX
> SSIZE_MAX is something like 2^15 -1. This seems to be a real
> limitation when writing to a TCP/IP socket, as I learned from
> experience. However, much larger reads and writes seem to be possible
> to files and UNIX sockets
11 matches
Mail list logo
