On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 01:09:00PM -0600, Brian Ford wrote: > >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. > Working buggy code, yes. I wouldn't sweat it. I would be simple to fix.
> Robert seems to be leaning towards removing the PATH_MAX define entirely > now, however. > Like I said before, this doesn't seem like a very good idea. -- 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/