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
Subject: Re: For masochists: the leap o faith
From: Robert Collins <rbcollins AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
In-Reply-To: <20031121102544.GA9027@cygbert.vinschen.de>
References: <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>
	 <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>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-IXCuuj/F+v3/Wim3LX/I"
Message-Id: <1069494289.1167.39.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 20:44:49 +1100

--=-IXCuuj/F+v3/Wim3LX/I
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 21:25, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 07:58:36AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >=20
> > > 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 possi=
ble
> > > plus one: 32768.  The latter is probably the better value.  So my cho=
ice
> > > is a)
> >=20
> > Ok. What should we set CYG_MAX_PATH to initially then? I think we shoul=
d
> > start at 4K, until we've seen whether there are any stack size issues.
>=20
> 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?

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.

Rob

--=20
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.

--=-IXCuuj/F+v3/Wim3LX/I
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA/vzAQI5+kQ8LJcoIRAlimAKCrLx7+qYmydzxnmB5UreyM4HRY8wCfRWn6
cZ1hEBlvzrdgoKbeck7Nphw=
=GcXV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-IXCuuj/F+v3/Wim3LX/I--