Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/11/21/05:25:55
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 07:58:36AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 21:56, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 08:10:08AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> > > We have two choices (no particular order of preference):
> > > a) make MAX_PATH and posix friends the maximum length path cygwin will
> > > accept/return. Return ENAMETOOLONG on path calls on win9x, or winnt
> > > FAT[32] calls. Update pathconf to return appropriate values.
> > > b) blow away MAX_PATH and MAXPATHLEN so that programs using cygwin
> > > fallback to pathconf, or 'good enough for me' static arrays. Update
> > > pathconf to return appropriate values.
> >
> > Well, I guess you meant PATH_MAX here.
>
> Yes, of course.
>
> > I would prefer to change PATH_MAX and MAXPATHLEN to an arbitrary big
> > value as, e. g. the same as on Linux, 4096, or even the biggest possible
> > plus one: 32768. The latter is probably the better value. So my choice
> > is a)
>
> Ok. What should we set CYG_MAX_PATH to initially then? I think we should
> start at 4K, until we've seen whether there are any stack size issues.
I think we should get rid of static buffers in most cases. Some of them
might be kept in place, returning to MAX_PATH, the others should use
another technique, like alloca. As I see it, CYG_MAX_PATH should be just
a temporary measure.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.
--
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 -