Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 1 Sep 2006 17:08:02 -0400
From:      Garance A Drosehn <gad@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de>
Cc:        freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: suggested addition to 'date'
Message-ID:  <p0623092ac11e512db5bb@[128.113.24.47]>
In-Reply-To: <44F892AE.8040409@elischer.org>
References:  <200609011707.k81H7Ych050627@lurza.secnetix.de> <44F892AE.8040409@elischer.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 1:06 PM -0700 9/1/06, Julian Elischer wrote:
>Oliver Fromme wrote:
>
>>Julian Elischer wrote:
>>
>>>  What is the effective maximum line length for a single fgetln?
>>
>>It's unlimited.  fgetln() allocates sufficient amount of
>>memory dynamically, that's why I used it instead of fgets().
>>It avoids reinventing the wheel.
>>
>
>NOTHING is unlimitted.
>what happens with a 3GB sequence of characters with no newlines?

This is exactly the type of question that we already know is
answered in 'cat', because the 'cat' command is already acting
as a filter.  It already has acceptable behavior with large files,
and with I/O errors, etc.

I think some kind of date-prefixing option would be a good idea
in the 'cat' command.  I am not objecting to the option, I'm
just saying that the option seems more appropriate for the 'cat'
command.

-- 
Garance Alistair Drosehn     =               drosehn@rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer               or   gad@FreeBSD.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute;             Troy, NY;  USA



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p0623092ac11e512db5bb>