Wes Peters wrote:
>
[...]
> Thanks to everyone who responded, and for the politeness of the responses in
> the face of the stupidity of the original question.
People are usually more polite when they are, err, having fun. ;->
--
Daniel C. Sobral(8-DCS)
d...@newsguy.com
d
Wes Peters wrote:
>
[...]
> Thanks to everyone who responded, and for the politeness of the responses in
> the face of the stupidity of the original question.
People are usually more polite when they are, err, having fun. ;->
--
Daniel C. Sobral(8-DCS)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> :Now I've got to go figure out what *I've* screwed up. I fstat the file
> before
> :mapping it and pass S.st_size as the map length. Is there any reason why
> :mmap would return non-NULL but map less than the requested size?
> :
> :Scratching my head,
>
> Note tha
Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> :Now I've got to go figure out what *I've* screwed up. I fstat the file before
> :mapping it and pass S.st_size as the map length. Is there any reason why
> :mmap would return non-NULL but map less than the requested size?
> :
> :Scratching my head,
>
> Note that
:Now I've got to go figure out what *I've* screwed up. I fstat the file before
:mapping it and pass S.st_size as the map length. Is there any reason why
:mmap would return non-NULL but map less than the requested size?
:
:Scratching my head,
Note that mmap() returns (void *)-1 when an error
:Wes Peters scribbled this message on Aug 21:
:> Now I've got to go figure out what *I've* screwed up. I fstat the file
before
:> mapping it and pass S.st_size as the map length. Is there any reason why
:> mmap would return non-NULL but map less than the requested size?
:
:no, there is NO reaso
:Now I've got to go figure out what *I've* screwed up. I fstat the file before
:mapping it and pass S.st_size as the map length. Is there any reason why
:mmap would return non-NULL but map less than the requested size?
:
:Scratching my head,
Note that mmap() returns (void *)-1 when an erro
Wes Peters scribbled this message on Aug 21:
> Now I've got to go figure out what *I've* screwed up. I fstat the file before
> mapping it and pass S.st_size as the map length. Is there any reason why
> mmap would return non-NULL but map less than the requested size?
no, there is NO reason why it
:Wes Peters scribbled this message on Aug 21:
:> Now I've got to go figure out what *I've* screwed up. I fstat the file before
:> mapping it and pass S.st_size as the map length. Is there any reason why
:> mmap would return non-NULL but map less than the requested size?
:
:no, there is NO reaso
Don Lewis wrote:
>
> On Aug 21, 2:10am, Wes Peters wrote:
> } Subject: mmap mapped segment length
> } I discovered to my dismay today that the length field in the mmap call is
> } a size_t, not an off_t. I was attempting to process a large (~50 MByte)
> file
> } and found
Wes Peters scribbled this message on Aug 21:
> Now I've got to go figure out what *I've* screwed up. I fstat the file before
> mapping it and pass S.st_size as the map length. Is there any reason why
> mmap would return non-NULL but map less than the requested size?
no, there is NO reason why i
Don Lewis wrote:
>
> On Aug 21, 2:10am, Wes Peters wrote:
> } Subject: mmap mapped segment length
> } I discovered to my dismay today that the length field in the mmap call is
> } a size_t, not an off_t. I was attempting to process a large (~50 MByte) file
> } and found I w
Wes Peters scribbled this message on Aug 21:
> I discovered to my dismay today that the length field in the mmap call is
> a size_t, not an off_t. I was attempting to process a large (~50 MByte) file
> and found I was only processing the first 4 MBytes of it.
as w/ others I'm assuming the file is
Wes Peters scribbled this message on Aug 21:
> I discovered to my dismay today that the length field in the mmap call is
> a size_t, not an off_t. I was attempting to process a large (~50 MByte) file
> and found I was only processing the first 4 MBytes of it.
as w/ others I'm assuming the file i
On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 02:10:47 -0600
Wes Peters wrote:
> I discovered to my dismay today that the length field in the mmap call is
> a size_t, not an off_t. I was attempting to process a large (~50 MByte) file
> and found I was only processing the first 4 MBytes of it.
...first of all, I ass
On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 02:10:47 -0600
Wes Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I discovered to my dismay today that the length field in the mmap call is
> a size_t, not an off_t. I was attempting to process a large (~50 MByte) file
> and found I was only processing the first 4 MBytes of it.
..
Don Lewis said:
> On Aug 21, 2:10am, Wes Peters wrote:
> } Subject: mmap mapped segment length
> } I discovered to my dismay today that the length field in the mmap call is
> } a size_t, not an off_t. I was attempting to process a large (~50 MByte)
> file
> } and found I was o
Don Lewis said:
> On Aug 21, 2:10am, Wes Peters wrote:
> } Subject: mmap mapped segment length
> } I discovered to my dismay today that the length field in the mmap call is
> } a size_t, not an off_t. I was attempting to process a large (~50 MByte) file
> } and found I was only
On Aug 21, 2:10am, Wes Peters wrote:
} Subject: mmap mapped segment length
} I discovered to my dismay today that the length field in the mmap call is
} a size_t, not an off_t. I was attempting to process a large (~50 MByte) file
} and found I was only processing the first 4 MBytes of it.
50 MB
I discovered to my dismay today that the length field in the mmap call is
a size_t, not an off_t. I was attempting to process a large (~50 MByte) file
and found I was only processing the first 4 MBytes of it.
Is this intentional, or just an artifact of the implementation? Is there any
reason NOT
On Aug 21, 2:10am, Wes Peters wrote:
} Subject: mmap mapped segment length
} I discovered to my dismay today that the length field in the mmap call is
} a size_t, not an off_t. I was attempting to process a large (~50 MByte) file
} and found I was only processing the first 4 MBytes of it.
50
I discovered to my dismay today that the length field in the mmap call is
a size_t, not an off_t. I was attempting to process a large (~50 MByte) file
and found I was only processing the first 4 MBytes of it.
Is this intentional, or just an artifact of the implementation? Is there any
reason NO
22 matches
Mail list logo
