RE: Itanium size-related tests
At 2002/7/29 22:21-0700 Wichmann, Mats D writes:
>
> To be clear, the only question I was really asking was
> why the glibc header seems to define SSIZE_MAX as an int,
> while ssize_t itself is a long. This doesn't look right.
Oh sure, I agree it looks wrong. What I was trying to say was the
SSIZE_MAX setting *might* have been intentional because its
approximately (plus or minus a bug or two) what the 2.4 kernel
readv/writev supports (tried to support) even on 64 bit platforms with
a bigger ssize_t (it looked for 32 bit overflow).
No reason why SSIZE_MAX can't be bigger, but the 2.5 code will need to
be backported to 2.4.
Chris
--
cyeoh@au.ibm.com
IBM OzLabs Linux Development Group
Canberra, Australia
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-test-request@lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
Reply to: