Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Authentication-Warning:	eos.vss.fsi.com: ford owned process doing -bs
Date:	Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:19:14 -0600 (CST)
From:	Brian Ford <ford AT vss DOT fsi DOT com>
X-X-Sender:	ford AT eos
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: For masochists: the leap o faith
In-Reply-To:	<20031115191500.GC3797@redhat.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.GSO.4.56.0311151317290.922@eos>
References:	<3FB4D81C DOT 6010808 AT cygwin DOT com> <3FB53BAE DOT 3000803 AT cygwin DOT com>
	<20031114220708 DOT GA26100 AT redhat DOT com> <3FB55BCE DOT 8030304 AT cygwin DOT com>
	<20031115044347 DOT GA29583 AT redhat DOT com> <1068883645 DOT 1109 DOT 122 DOT camel AT localhost>
	<20031115164534 DOT GB3039 AT redhat DOT com> <20031115165229 DOT GA3296 AT redhat DOT com>
	<Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 56 DOT 0311151259270 DOT 922 AT eos> <20031115191500 DOT GC3797 AT redhat DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 01:09:00PM -0600, Brian Ford wrote:
> >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.
>
Working buggy code, yes.  I wouldn't sweat it.  I would be simple to fix.

> Robert seems to be leaning towards removing the PATH_MAX define entirely
> now, however.
>
Like I said before, this doesn't seem like a very good idea.

-- 
Brian Ford
Senior Realtime Software Engineer
VITAL - Visual Simulation Systems
FlightSafety International
Phone: 314-551-8460
Fax:   314-551-8444

--
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/

- Raw text -