On 10/21/16 15:44, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Colin Percival <cperc...@tarsnap.com> 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 bit confused about what my commit actually did
It added a comment providing a reason for not conforming to POSIX, but did not change the underlying behaviour. > (it's been 12 years!) but my point is that a) by all means, signedness > doesn't really matter for compatibility, but b) if we're changing the > type, 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? -- Colin Percival Security Officer Emeritus, FreeBSD | The power to serve Founder, Tarsnap | www.tarsnap.com | Online backups for the truly paranoid _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
