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
Date:	Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:59:16 +0100
From:	Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: For masochists: the leap o faith
Message-ID:	<20031122105916.GE18252@cygbert.vinschen.de>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<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> <1068930608 DOT 1109 DOT 172 DOT camel AT localhost> <20031117105635 DOT GD18706 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <1069361916 DOT 1117 DOT 46 DOT camel AT localhost> <20031121102544 DOT GA9027 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <1069494289 DOT 1167 DOT 39 DOT camel AT localhost>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<1069494289.1167.39.camel@localhost>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.4.1i

On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 08:44:49PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 21:25, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 07:58:36AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> > > > 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.
> 
> "Stack issues", not static buffers - or did you mean 'stack' buffers?

'Statically sized'

> Anyway, yes, we should tune each individual thing to an appropriate
> strategy - self managing objects, alloc etc.
> 
> However, CYG_MAX_PATH is simply decoupling the win32 ANSI path limit
> from our internal path limit. If and when we don't have an effective
> internal limit anymore, sure it can go.

Yup, that's what I meant.  It doesn't hurt to check the occurences
of CYG_MAX_PATH now, if there isn't a simple way to get around without
it.  Other than that, I think the right limit is 32K as I already wrote
in my first reply (see above), not something less than that.  Using
some arbitrary number like 4K only results in headaches at a point
where you had never expected it.  The difference to Linux is, that 4K
is the real limit on Linux, while our limit is 32K.

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 -