This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: For masochists: the leap o faith
- From: Brian Ford <ford at vss dot fsi dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:09:00 -0600 (CST)
- Subject: Re: For masochists: the leap o faith
- References: <3FB4D81C.firstname.lastname@example.org> <3FB53BAE.email@example.com><20031114220708.GA26100@redhat.com> <3FB55BCE.firstname.lastname@example.org><20031115044347.GA29583@redhat.com> <1068883645.1109.122.camel@localhost><20031115164534.GB3039@redhat.com> <20031115165229.GA3296@redhat.com>
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
> 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
Senior Realtime Software Engineer
VITAL - Visual Simulation Systems
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html