Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 12:21:31 -0700 From: Bill Currie Subject: Re: Latest stub To: Charles Sandmann 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 Reply-to: billc AT blackmagic DOT tait DOT co DOT nz Message-id: <339EFABB.18E8@blackmagic.tait.co.nz> Organization: Tait Electronics NZ MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <9706102144 DOT AA16090 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> Precedence: bulk Charles Sandmann wrote: > > > 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. Ugh... Hmm.. what are the consequences of the size ton being 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). Actually, I have just made the required mods to implement the re-definition of stubinfo_minkeep and the only problem I had when I stubedited my program to 64k was and `Abort!' (probably in getchar(), I'll have to look at it) but 64k-16 (0xfff0) worked just fine as far as I could tell. I'll post my patches in separately. Bill -- Leave others their otherness.