On 16/3/21 8:34 am, Alex White wrote: > I honestly can't remember why I changed 1024 to 20,000. > > I've looked back at that code and changed it back to 1024 without any issues. > I think I might have missed that this is all happening in a loop, and at one > point during a (long) debugging session I convinced myself that it wasn't > reading all of the entries. > > At least that's the most rational explanation I can think up for that > particular change. 😊
Great :) > If I revert ENTRIES from 20000 back to 1024, are we satisfied to leave the > "entries" array as-is? Yes. The need for a change was not my focus rather it was how it was being handled so I am fine with the old value. Thanks Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
