From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Oct  4 14:54:50 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from acl.lanl.gov (acl.lanl.gov [128.165.147.1])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E82E937B503
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed,  4 Oct 2000 14:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mini.acl.lanl.gov (root@mini.acl.lanl.gov [128.165.147.34]) by acl.lanl.gov (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA6430864; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 15:54:37 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from localhost (rminnich@localhost)
	by mini.acl.lanl.gov (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA07895;
	Wed, 4 Oct 2000 15:54:37 -0600
X-Authentication-Warning: mini.acl.lanl.gov: rminnich owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 15:54:37 -0600 (MDT)
From: Ronald G Minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov>
X-Sender: rminnich@mini.acl.lanl.gov
To: FengYue <fengyue@bluerose.windmoon.nu>
Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: anonymous memory map vs mmap on /dev/zero
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10010041412130.9343-100000@bluerose.windmoon.nu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010041553430.6560-100000@mini.acl.lanl.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, FengYue wrote:

> It seems that mmap on /dev/zero is more portable.

no really, It won't work at all correctly on linux, and on Tru64 it does
the totally wrong thing, but the (fd = -1, MAP_ANONYMOUS) does the right
thing on tru64. 

It's disappointing that this works so unportably :-(

ron



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message