Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 02:31:36 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: bakul@torrentnet.com (Bakul Shah) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Supporting more than FD_SETSIZE fd's Message-ID: <199811170231.TAA05161@usr05.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199811162237.RAA02348@chai.torrentnet.com> from "Bakul Shah" at Nov 16, 98 05:37:14 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > The problem that normally occurs in naieve net code is this: > > > cnt = getdtablesize(); > > select( cnt + 1, ...) > > If you read carefully this is not what I am advocating. I know; I was just noting the common problem that crops up when people see code like yo posted and try to imitate it from memory. > > > Basically fd_set should have never been defined. > > > > Definitely agree. But... it's *still* stupid to call select with > > a count that includes unallocated descriptors. > > You are preaching to the converted :-) Yah; just wanted to note that even though it should never have been defined, it having never been defined is not an excuse to do the wrong thing... I think I'm familiar with the section of code that Nate is concerned with; I think by default that it does the wrong thing. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199811170231.TAA05161>