On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> so in a nutshell, mmap(2) was originally a BSD idea and first implemented
> in SunOS? And there is no doubt that *BSD always had MAP_ANON and never
> MAP_ANONYMOUS and that SunOS primarily defines MAP_ANON and MAP_ANONYMOUS
> only for "/* (s
>I don't think MAP_ANONYMOUS is being proposed for standardization
>because it's perceived to be of older origin than MAP_ANON or
>anything. I'm pretty sure the focus is instead because it's perceived
>to have greater 'market share' among present day systems and
>applications.
Oh come on, the pus
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> mmap() "first appeared" in 4.1cBSD [mmap.2] and was scheduled for
>> inclusion in 4.2BSD (1983) [UVM thesis, p36], but didn't "actually
>> appear" until the 1993 4.4BSD release [UVM thesis, p36].
>
> At least MAP_ANON is definitely a lot old
Hi Matthew,
so in a nutshell, mmap(2) was originally a BSD idea and first implemented
in SunOS? And there is no doubt that *BSD always had MAP_ANON and never
MAP_ANONYMOUS and that SunOS primarily defines MAP_ANON and MAP_ANONYMOUS
only for "/* (source compatibility) */", right? And that the ear
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Yes, I'm saying that this should affect POSIX's standardization.
> Solaris is where mmap(2) came from.
The full history is a bit more complicated though. From what I've
managed to uncover over the past few days so far:
mmap() "first appea
> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:53:00 -0700
> From: Matthew Dempsky
>
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Mark Kettenis
> wrote:
> > Solaris documents MAP_ANON in its man page, and defines MAP_ANONYMOUS
> > as MAP_ANON for source compatibility.
>
> Yep, but what about it? Are you suggesting that
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Solaris documents MAP_ANON in its man page, and defines MAP_ANONYMOUS
> as MAP_ANON for source compatibility.
Yep, but what about it? Are you suggesting that should affect POSIX's
standardization, or that we should do the same thing? I su
> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:22:08 -0700
> From: Matthew Dempsky
>
> I filed an enhancement request with the Austin Group to standardize an
> mmap() flag for mapping anonymous memory. I proposed standardizing
> MAP_ANON, but the current proposal is to standardize MAP_ANONYMOUS
> instead, as that
I filed an enhancement request with the Austin Group to standardize an
mmap() flag for mapping anonymous memory. I proposed standardizing
MAP_ANON, but the current proposal is to standardize MAP_ANONYMOUS
instead, as that seems to be the more common definition and usage:
http://austingroupbug
