Re^2: syswrite and STDOUT (guess)

Win32 was mentioned in the CB. I suspect that reporting $^E instead of just $! might be more instructive. But it isn't just the buffer size of the pipe (which defines how much can be sent atomically); I'm assuming that the amount of data is so much that the kernel exhausted some resource trying to buffer it all. I find it surprising that this would happen (and I doubt it would on Unix), but that was the best guess I could come up with.

- tye

Comment on Re^2: syswrite and STDOUT (guess)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: syswrite and STDOUT (guess) by polettix (Vicar) on Apr 29, 2005 at 15:41 UTC
But it isn't just the buffer size of the pipe (which defines how much can be sent atomically); I'm assuming that the amount of data is so much that the kernel exhausted some resource trying to buffer it all. You're right, I merged the concepts, even if some lurking inside the 2.4.x Linux kernel convinced me that Linux considers them to be the same, as far as I can remember. Anyway, the fractioned approach you suggest should be used more generally - testing if `write/syswrite` actually wrote all requested characters should become an habit much like testing if `open` was successful. Flavio (perl -e 'print(scalar(reverse("\nti.xittelop\@oivalf")))') Don't fool yourself.	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: syswrite and STDOUT (guess)
by polettix (Vicar) on Apr 29, 2005 at 15:41 UTC

But it isn't just the buffer size of the pipe (which defines how much can be sent atomically); I'm assuming that the amount of data is so much that the kernel exhausted some resource trying to buffer it all.

Anyway, the fractioned approach you suggest should be used more generally - testing if write/syswrite actually wrote all requested characters should become an habit much like testing if open was successful.

Flavio (perl -e 'print(scalar(reverse("\nti.xittelop\@oivalf")))')

Don't fool yourself.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]