Alle mercoledì 13 febbraio 2013, Samuel Thibault ha scritto: > Pino Toscano, le Wed 13 Feb 2013 00:08:21 +0100, a écrit : > > Alle mercoledì 13 febbraio 2013, Svante Signell ha scritto: > > > On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 23:52 +0100, Pino Toscano wrote: > > > > Alle martedì 12 febbraio 2013, Svante Signell ha scritto: > > > > > * change the FD_SETSIZE upper value check to larger than or > > > > > equal > > > > > > > > > > from larger than. > > > > > (from POSIX definition of select: > > > > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009604499/functions/sele > > > > > ct.h tml ) > > > > > > > > It's > > > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/selec > > > > t.ht ml > > > > > > > > actually, and it says: > > > > |[EINVAL] > > > > | > > > > | The nfds argument is less than 0 or greater than > > > > | FD_SETSIZE. > > > > > > > > and not "greater or equal than", so it allows FD_SETSIZE. > > > > (And logically, if a fdset_t can contain at most FD_SETSIZE > > > > fd's, you need to allow FD_SETSIZE as maximum number of fd's.) > > > > > > > > Please remove this change, which is wrong. > > > > > > Then you have to convince the Linux man page and the python3.2 > > > developers too. From python3.2: > > > ./Include/fileobject.h: #define _PyIsSelectable_fd(FD) (((FD) >= > > > 0) && ((FD) < FD_SETSIZE)) > > > > Feel free to open bugs about them, then. > > That being said, for the python case they may prefer to stay on the > safe side, and just not attempt to select FD_SETSIZE, in the case > the OS has bugs that leaves it with the old standard.
Of course -- but then you either need to dig through history and check whether that was intended, or just an oversight; if no history about that is available or there's nothing pointing out at an intentional behaviour, then filing a bug will surely be the best way to let them know, and know about their idea on that. -- Pino Toscano
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
