For masochists: the leap o faith

[Brian Ford]

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/