Subject: Re: m_copy - doesn't copy if M_EXT is set.
To: Justin C. Walker <email@example.com>
From: Ignatios Souvatzis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/04/1999 21:50:16
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 05:23:24PM -0700, Justin C. Walker wrote:
> > From: Darren Reed <email@example.com>
> > Date: 1999-10-03 06:38:03 -0700
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: m_copy - doesn't copy if M_EXT is set.
> > Delivered-to: email@example.com
> > X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL37 (25)]
> > It would appear that the behaviour of m_copy()/m_copym() is changed,
> > depending on whether or not M_EXT is set. If M_EXT is set, then the
> > buffer is *NOT* coppied, just another external reference is made and
> > the appropriate counter incremented. If it is unset, then a new
> > buffer is allocated (M_GET) and data copied from the orignal to the
> > copy.
> You're correct about the behavior of m_copy()/m_copym(), but not
> about it's having changed. This is old behavior.
From before 4.4BSD, even, I think. Does anybody have a 4.3BSD book handy?