This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: For masochists: the leap o faith
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 14:15:00 -0500
- Subject: Re: For masochists: the leap o faith
- References: <3FB4D81C.6010808@cygwin.com> <3FB53BAE.3000803@cygwin.com> <20031114220708.GA26100@redhat.com> <3FB55BCE.8030304@cygwin.com> <20031115044347.GA29583@redhat.com> <1068883645.1109.122.camel@localhost> <20031115164534.GB3039@redhat.com> <20031115165229.GA3296@redhat.com> <Pine.GSO.4.56.0311151259270.922@eos>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 01:09:00PM -0600, Brian Ford wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> Btw, I've moved this discussion here from cygwin-patches because we are
>> talking about a change which could impact a number of people. Robert is
>> submitting patches which increase the maximum path length for NT-class
>> systems.
>>
>> My concern is that PATH_MAX will be increased for this change. It will
>> no longer reflect the win32 api MAX_PATH value and I was wondering if
>> that would cause problems for existing applications.
>>
>Would this affect gcc -mno-cygwin? That would seem bad.
No. It should have no effect. Different header files.
>> I thought the cygwin mailing list would be a wider audience for this
>> type of thing than cygwin-patches, especially since no one is offering
>> opinions in cygwin-patches.
>>
>Well, since your soliciting opinions...
>
>I don't have much of one other than I'd really prefer to keep
>PATH_MAX/MAX_PATH and define them to the largest allowable path so they
>can still be used for sizing arrays. I don't really care if that lenght
>is not always supported.
Ok. That was one plan. I was concerned that a program might be assuming that
since it had carefully checked that a path was <= PATH_MAX, everything was
fine when on a Windows 98 system, it could conceivably fail.
I know that this isn't exactly a 100% safe and sanctioned use of PATH_MAX but
it seems like the possibility exists that working code could be broken by
this change.
Robert seems to be leaning towards removing the PATH_MAX define entirely
now, however.
>I would assume that any application that goes to the trouble of doing
>something other than bailing with an error in that case should actually
>use pathconf.
That's the way I'd write my code but I'm not certain that all of the currently
running code is so robust.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/