Colin Percival writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes:
> > [...] we might as well change the value of RLIM_INFINITY to (rlim_t)-1
> > to match other OSes, and we can do it without significant breakage.
> Should we get a ports experimental run for this?
Sure. It
On 10/21/16 15:44, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Colin Percival writes:
>> I wasn't talking about the value of RLIM_INFINITY, but rather about whether
>> rlim_t should be signed or unsigned. Right now it is signed; but POSIX says
>> it should be unsigned, and most other OSes
Colin Percival writes:
> I wasn't talking about the value of RLIM_INFINITY, but rather about whether
> rlim_t should be signed or unsigned. Right now it is signed; but POSIX says
> it should be unsigned, and most other OSes follow POSIX's mandate here.
Yeah, I was a little
On 10/21/16 11:37, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Colin Percival writes:
>> Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes:
>>> -typedef __int64_t __rlim_t; /* resource limit (XXX not
>>> unsigned) */
>>> +typedef __int64_t __rlim_t; /* resource limit -
Colin Percival writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes:
> > -typedef __int64_t __rlim_t; /* resource limit (XXX not
> > unsigned) */
> > +typedef __int64_t __rlim_t; /* resource limit - intentionally
> > */
> > +
On 11/08/04 10:05, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> des 2004-11-08 18:05:43 UTC
>
> FreeBSD src repository
>
> Modified files:
> sys/sys _types.h resource.h
> Log:
> Document why rlim_t needs to be a signed type.
> Define RLIM_INFINITY as INT64_MAX instead of