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 13:09:00 -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: <20031115165229.GA3296@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.56.0311151259270.922@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

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.

> 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.

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.

-- 
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/