Re: [PATCH] tests: don't assume getdtablesize () <= 10000000

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>]

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:37:26PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>[adding cygwin]
>
>On 04/29/2013 04:23 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> ---
>
>> +
>> +	tests: don't assume getdtablesize () <= 10000000
>> +	* modules/cloexec-tests:
>> +	* modules/dup2-tests:
>> +	* modules/dup3-tests:
>> +	* modules/nonblocking-tests:
>> +	* modules/posix_spawn_file_actions_addclose-tests:
>> +	* modules/posix_spawn_file_actions_adddup2-tests:
>> +	* modules/posix_spawn_file_actions_addopen-tests:
>> +	* modules/unistd-safer-tests:
>> +	Depend on the getdtablesize module.
>> +	* tests/test-cloexec.c:
>> +	* tests/test-dup-safer.c:
>> +	* tests/test-dup2.c:
>> +	* tests/test-dup3.c:
>> +	* tests/test-fcntl.c:
>> +	* tests/test-nonblocking.c:
>> +	* tests/test-posix_spawn_file_actions_addclose.c:
>> +	* tests/test-posix_spawn_file_actions_adddup2.c:
>> +	* tests/test-posix_spawn_file_actions_addopen.c:
>> +	Don't assume getdtablesize () <= 10000000.
>
>This patch causes failures on at least test-fcntl and test-dup2 on
>cygwin (both 32-bit and 64-bit); there, getdtablesize() currently
>returns the current runtime value, but this value starts at 256, and
>automatically expands as needed at runtime up to 3200.  I think cygwin
>should be patched to make getdtablesize() return a constant 3200 (rather
>than the current runtime value);

Why?  What does "3200" have to do with anything?  There is not supposed
to be a hard-coded upper limit.

cgf

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple