For masochists: the leap o faith

[Robert Collins]

On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 15:43, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 09:48:46AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>It is fairly unusual for PATH_MAX to be many times greater than what is
> >>support by pathconf.
> >
> >And yet:
> >http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/fpathconf.html
> 
> Yes, I've already (obviously?) been to SUSv3.  I wasn't talking about
> standards.  I was talking about common practice.
> 
> If you have a common practice web site that you want to show me then
> that might be a convincing argument.  Otherwise, I'll have to fall back
> on my personal UNIX experience.
> 
> I'm not vetoing the change because PATH_MAX is potentially large.  I was
> kind of hoping (because I'm in incurable optimist) to start a discussion
> with people who were familiar with packages that used PATH_MAX.  How
> SUSv3 defines PATH_MAX is irrelevant to existing programs.

Well, it'll keep. I'll publish up my latest revision of the patch
tonight, and leave it for Ron or other interested parties to carry
through. There is obviously another couple of days work to get all the
edges off, and then there's the gcc objects-on-stack issue to resolve.
Still it'd be great to get this in, in some fashion.

I would like to get the thunking changes in, simply to make the only
part of the patch outstanding the controversial stuff. 

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-patches/attachments/20031115/8fb0b746/attachment.sig>