On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Kang-Che Sung wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Denys Vlasenko
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Kang-Che Sung wrote:
>>> Hello. Can I suggest another way?
>>> How about
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Kang-Che Sung wrote:
>> Hello. Can I suggest another way?
>> How about modifying the `line` buffer so it can be used directly as the name,
>> and avoid the
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Kang-Che Sung wrote:
> Hello. Can I suggest another way?
> How about modifying the `line` buffer so it can be used directly as the name,
> and avoid the malloc problem or STRINGIFY(PATH_MAX) altogether.
>
> My suggestion (warning, this code
All,
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Jared Bents
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:31 PM, Baruch Siach wrote:
>> Hi Matthew,
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 08:45:42PM -0500, Matthew Weber wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Emmanuel
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 01:18:14PM -0400, Michael Conrad wrote:
> I guess I'll retract this, unless someone else knows something. I remember
> someone warning about this behavior, but I can't find a reference and I just
> tested on 32-bit and allocating stack buffers up to the maximum stack size
>
On 6/27/2017 3:10 AM, Ralf Friedl wrote:
Michael Conrad wrote:
If you ask for large enough allocations on the stack, GCC will
secretly give you malloc/free instead, which adds to code size. It
might be that 4096 triggers this effect, and perhaps that was the
reason for the original small-ish
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:31 PM, Baruch Siach wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 08:45:42PM -0500, Matthew Weber wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Emmanuel Deloget wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Matthew Weber
>> >
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:53 PM, walter harms wrote:
>
> Am 27.06.2017 05:31, schrieb Baruch Siach:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 08:45:42PM -0500, Matthew Weber wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Emmanuel Deloget wrote:
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:23
Am 27.06.2017 05:31, schrieb Baruch Siach:
> Hi Matthew,
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 08:45:42PM -0500, Matthew Weber wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Emmanuel Deloget wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Matthew Weber
>>>
Michael Conrad wrote:
If you ask for large enough allocations on the stack, GCC will
secretly give you malloc/free instead, which adds to code size. It
might be that 4096 triggers this effect, and perhaps that was the
reason for the original small-ish static buffer.
Do you have a reference for
On 6/26/2017 9:45 PM, Matthew Weber wrote:
Baruch/Emmanuel,
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Emmanuel Deloget wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Matthew Weber
wrote:
Baruch,
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Baruch Siach
Baruch/Emmanuel,
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Emmanuel Deloget wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Matthew Weber
> wrote:
>>
>> Baruch,
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Baruch Siach wrote:
>> > Hi
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Matthew Weber <
matthew.we...@rockwellcollins.com> wrote:
> Baruch,
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Baruch Siach wrote:
> > Hi Jared,
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 03:33:09PM -0500, Matt Weber wrote:
> >> From: Jared Bents
Baruch,
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Baruch Siach wrote:
> Hi Jared,
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 03:33:09PM -0500, Matt Weber wrote:
>> From: Jared Bents
>>
>> Update to increase the pathname limit to the
>> linux limit of 4096 characters.
Hi Jared,
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 03:33:09PM -0500, Matt Weber wrote:
> From: Jared Bents
>
> Update to increase the pathname limit to the
> linux limit of 4096 characters.
>
> Similar patch:
> https://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/131475/
>
>
From: Jared Bents
Update to increase the pathname limit to the
linux limit of 4096 characters.
Similar patch:
https://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/131475/
Signed-off-by: Jared Bents
Signed-off-by: Matt Weber
16 matches
Mail list logo