On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 3:20 AM Sergey Bugaev <buga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 9:19 AM Flávio Cruz <flavioc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Still, at the > > end of the day we should only have two ways of defining strings, either > through > > c_string or by using variable arrays as defined by data_t. > > Hi, > > I have not looked at your string patches in detail, but please tell me > we're finally moving away from passing strings as char[1024]? > > This is *so bad*. We tell people we don't have PATH_MAX because "The > Hurd, following the GNU Coding Standards, tries to avoid this kind of > arbitrary limits", and then we limit strings (and effectively paths) > to 1024 bytes. There are even comments saying "XXX string_t LOSES!" > all over glibc, whenever it has to allocate char[1024] on the stack. > > So again, if you haven't already, please look into getting rid of this > awful char[1024] thing, and using proper dynamically-sized strings. > This is fixing a different problem, but couldn't agree more with you on the use of fixed sized strings for those RPCs when we do support dynamically-sized strings through MiG. > > Sergey >
