bug-cvs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Is there really any interest in a patch to allow cvs 1.11.6 to run


From: Kelly F. Hickel
Subject: RE: Is there really any interest in a patch to allow cvs 1.11.6 to run
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 20:52:19 -0500


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Jones [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 6:58 PM
> To: Kelly F. Hickel
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: Is there really any interest in a patch to allow cvs
1.11.6
> to run
> 
> Kelly F. Hickel writes:
> >
> > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> 
> Please do not send MIME and/or HTML encrypted messages to the list.
> Plain text only, PLEASE!

Sorry about that, I just reloaded that system and forgot to change the
default.

> 
> >             So, what's the story?  Any interest in a port for a
weird
> > system that most people won't use, or not?  The bulk of the changes
have
> > to do with detecting the OS and dealing with the charming "feature"
that
> > read/write don't (seem) to work with buffers > 52k bytes...........
> 
> What, exactly, does "don't (seems) to work" mean?  Do they simply
return
> less than the requested length?  Do they return -1 without reading or
> writing anything?  Or do they do something really perverse?  52kB is
an
> interesting number since it's close to 64k, but not that close.  It
> isn't a 16-bit environment, is it?

It's been a couple of years since I really looked into this, read and
write return -1, I don't remember the errno value.  I've recently come
across some information that leads me to believe that the size might be
dependant upon the host OS (guardian) settings, but I haven't been able
to prove it, and this is the default, anyway.

> 
> -Larry Jones
> 
> I don't see why some people even HAVE cars. -- Calvin

-Kelly




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]