Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:58:32 +0000 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@tarsnap.com> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys _types.h resource.h Message-ID: <01000157e3ac7333-7f3a65f0-9ac8-40ba-a5e9-b88df9d4e042-000000@email.amazonses.com> In-Reply-To: <200411081805.iA8I5hVK038813@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200411081805.iA8I5hVK038813@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/08/04 10:05, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > des 2004-11-08 18:05:43 UTC > > FreeBSD src repository > > Modified files: > sys/sys _types.h resource.h > Log: > Document why rlim_t needs to be a signed type. > Define RLIM_INFINITY as INT64_MAX instead of hand-rolling it. >From r137390: > -typedef __int64_t __rlim_t; /* resource limit (XXX not unsigned) */ > +typedef __int64_t __rlim_t; /* resource limit - intentionally */ > + /* signed, because of legacy code */ > + /* that uses -1 for RLIM_INFINITY */ Is it time to drop compatibility for code which was "legacy" 12 years ago in order to conform to the POSIX stipulation that rlim_t should be unsigned? -- Colin Percival Security Officer Emeritus, FreeBSD | The power to serve Founder, Tarsnap | www.tarsnap.com | Online backups for the truly paranoid
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01000157e3ac7333-7f3a65f0-9ac8-40ba-a5e9-b88df9d4e042-000000>