On Jan 24, 2018 11:33 AM, "Conrad Meyer" <c...@freebsd.org> wrote:
Bruce didn't get this wrong, you've just misread his (style / opinion) complaint as an actual bug (which is kind of the whole reason why it's hard to treat his complaints seriously): > size_t happens to have the same representation as u_long on all supported arches So yes, the check works on i386. I confused off_t and size_t, so much of what I said turns out not to be relevant. I'd be fine with just fixing the style issue, renaming WOULD_OVERFLOW to malloc_would_overrflow and using that for most of the NO_WAIT cases as a precheck.... Warner Warner Best, Conrad On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com> wrote: > Does mallocarray(10 ,1Gb) panic on i386? It does not. It should. > > Warner > > On Jan 24, 2018 11:20 AM, "Conrad Meyer" <c...@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> Please point out what in Bruce's rant is actually relevant. Again, I >> usually start reading them and get sidetracked in things that are >> opinions stated as fact, or outright incorrect. At which point, I >> give up on them. >> > _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
