From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <9706102144.AA16090@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Latest stub
To: billc AT blackmagic DOT tait DOT co DOT nz
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 16:44:14 -0600 (CDT)
Cc: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il, robert DOT hoehne AT mathematik DOT tu-chemnitz DOT de,
        djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <339ECC5D.3315@blackmagic.tait.co.nz> from "Bill Currie" at Jun 11, 97 09:03:41 am
Content-Type: text
Precedence: bulk

> As to why IO is slower with a `64k' buffer, that's easy... 64k in 16
> bits is 0 which is less than the 2k minimum, and so the transfer buffer
> size winds up being 2k instead of 64k. (64k expressed in paragraphs
> would be 1000h (4k if misinterpreted, which is better than 0))

It's worse than that - the transfer buffer ends up being like 2500 bytes,
but not even on a 512 byte boundary.

The maximum should be enforced to be 63K (which is what was originally
intended but seems to have got lost someplace).