Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] FD_SETSIZE

2011-05-28 Thread Alan Coopersmith
On 05/28/11 09:54 AM, Richard Lowe wrote: > The rationale included the words "SPARC V9 ABI", if I recall > correctly. It's not changing. Yes: 4097659 64-bit FD_SETSIZE isn't V9 ABI compliant -- -Alan Coopersmith-alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Platform Engin

Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] FD_SETSIZE

2011-05-28 Thread Richard Lowe
The rationale included the words "SPARC V9 ABI", if I recall correctly. It's not changing. -- Rich ___ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss

Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] FD_SETSIZE

2011-05-28 Thread Alan Coopersmith
On 05/28/11 07:48 AM, Ben Taylor wrote: > On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Apostolos Syropoulos > wrote: >> Alan Coopersmith has posted the following in his blog: >> >> http://blogs.oracle.com/alanc/entry/there_i_fixed_it >> >> >> The question is why FD_SETSIZE takes the value 65536 in the 64bit

Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] FD_SETSIZE

2011-05-28 Thread Ben Taylor
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Apostolos Syropoulos wrote: > Alan Coopersmith has posted the following in his blog: > > > > http://blogs.oracle.com/alanc/entry/there_i_fixed_it > > > The question is why FD_SETSIZE takes the value 65536 in the 64bit model? I would assume that whoever changed di

[OpenIndiana-discuss] FD_SETSIZE

2011-05-28 Thread Apostolos Syropoulos
Alan Coopersmith has posted the following in his blog: http://blogs.oracle.com/alanc/entry/there_i_fixed_it   The question is why FD_SETSIZE takes the value 65536 in the 64bit model? What would happen if the default value would be, say, 2048? Regards, Apostolos -- Apostol