zturner added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D25783#574699, @labath wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D25783#574684, @zturner wrote: > > > There are many other problems with this code if we want to deal with > > atomicity. For example, the whole point of this patch was to handle short > > reads and writes. Well, if you have a short read or a write, then reading > > and writing a subsequent chunk is not atomic. > > > I am willing abandon the atomicity if someone tries to write more than 2GB of > data - I think he has bigger problems than that. Writing more than 2GB of data is not the only reason to get a short read or write. You can be interrupted by a signal after some of the data has been written but not all. This can happen with any number of bytes and at any time. `write`, `read`, and all other related functions will return a non-negative value indicating the number of bytes successfully read/written, which will be less than the number requested. https://reviews.llvm.org/D25783 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
