so mmap differs from the POSIX recommendation right. the malloc.conf option seems more like a workaround/hack. imo it's confusing to have mmap und munmap deal differently with len=0. being able to succesfully alocate memory which cannot be removed doesn't seem logical to me.
alex Nate Eldredge schrieb am 2009-07-05: > On Sun, 5 Jul 2009, Alexander Best wrote: > >i'm wondering why mmap and munmap behave differently when it comes > >to a length > >argument of zero. allocating memory with mmap for a zero length > >file returns a > >valid pointer to the mapped region. > >munmap however isn't able to remove a mapping with no length. > >wouldn't it be better to either forbid this in mmap or to allow it > >in munmap? > POSIX has an opinion: > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/mmap.html > "If len is zero, mmap() shall fail and no mapping shall be > established." > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/munmap.html > "The munmap() function shall fail if: > ... > [EINVAL] > The len argument is 0." > -- > Nate Eldredge > neldre...@math.ucsd.edu _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
