Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 12:10:50 -0400
Message-Id: <200105211610.MAA25739@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT envy DOT delorie DOT com using -f
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com, eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
In-reply-to: <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIEEHFCDAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
Subject: Re: Possible bash issue
References:  <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIEEHFCDAA DOT tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


> > So it still is larger than the transfer buffer, and thus the results
> > of the test are wrong.
> > 
> OK - so we need an exception for DJGPP, say 16K as default?

Could bash read the transfer buffer size at runtime and adapt?
Otherwise, there's no way you can choose a number that's right for
everyone, since anyone can change the transfer buffer size.