On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 01:09:00PM -0600, Brian Ford wrote: >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.
No. It should have no effect. Different header files. >> 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. Ok. That was one plan. I was concerned that a program might be assuming that since it had carefully checked that a path was <= PATH_MAX, everything was fine when on a Windows 98 system, it could conceivably fail. I know that this isn't exactly a 100% safe and sanctioned use of PATH_MAX but it seems like the possibility exists that working code could be broken by this change. Robert seems to be leaning towards removing the PATH_MAX define entirely now, however. >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. That's the way I'd write my code but I'm not certain that all of the currently running code is so robust. cgf -- 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/