On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 7:44 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 02:12:55 PM m...@freebsd.org wrote:
>> I seem to recall a thread earlier on this limitation, but looking at
>> actual libc/stdio sources, the 4 year old check for open(2)'s fd being
>> less than SHRT_MAX is still
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 02:12:55 PM m...@freebsd.org wrote:
> I seem to recall a thread earlier on this limitation, but looking at
> actual libc/stdio sources, the 4 year old check for open(2)'s fd being
> less than SHRT_MAX is still there. I thought I saw a patch to change
> this to an int
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 1 November 2012 10:40, Ian Lepore wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 11:12 -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
>>> I seem to recall a thread earlier on this limitation, but looking at
>>> actual libc/stdio sources, the 4 year old check for open(2)'s
On 1 November 2012 10:40, Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 11:12 -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
>> I seem to recall a thread earlier on this limitation, but looking at
>> actual libc/stdio sources, the 4 year old check for open(2)'s fd being
>> less than SHRT_MAX is still there. I though
On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 11:12 -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
> I seem to recall a thread earlier on this limitation, but looking at
> actual libc/stdio sources, the 4 year old check for open(2)'s fd being
> less than SHRT_MAX is still there. I thought I saw a patch to change
> this to an int, but it
I seem to recall a thread earlier on this limitation, but looking at
actual libc/stdio sources, the 4 year old check for open(2)'s fd being
less than SHRT_MAX is still there. I thought I saw a patch to change
this to an int, but it's not in the tree. Was this in a PR or a
mailing list thread or a
