On 14/09/17 15:52, Michael J Gruber wrote: > ulimit succeeds (by return value) but does not limit on some systems. > > Set ulimit() to false on these systems so that we do not rely on its > output nor effect. As an intended side-effect, ulimit based > prerequisites are set correctly (to "not-have") on these systems. > > Reported-by: Ramsay Jones <ram...@ramsayjones.plus.com> > Reported-by: Adam Dinwoodie <a...@dinwoodie.org> > Reported-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> > Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <g...@grubix.eu> > --- > This is independent of my series, but should best go before so that no > ulimit based test is run on CYGWIN and MINGW. > > It follows the basic assumption that a tool like ulimit is either > present and functional or not present; and that we work around by > defines or such when that assumption is broken. > (Alternatively, we could set ULIMT_LIMITS or so and depend on that.)
Heh, this was my first suggestion, if you recall, but I decided to go a different way ... ;-) Also, Johannes made a good suggestion, which lead to a new version of my patch (which could easily be extended to cover the FIFO). I don't have a strong preference for either approach (but I would have to test your patches, which I haven't done yet), so I would be happy to see either applied. ATB, Ramsay Jones
