On 5/20/10 5:24 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > On 05/20/10 02:06 PM, I. Szczesniak wrote: >> I agree with Don that at *least* an opinion must be written for such a >> change. You will at least break major software like Informix with this >> change. >> > > Huh? > > I'm not disagreeing that an opinion is warranted, but it seems to me > that we're lifting a restriction; whether software is busted or not as a > consequence depends on whether > > a) the software is coded properly to inquire about limits using the > proper APIs. > b) the site has chosen to exercise longer usernames > > Both must be true for rationale cases of breakage. Of course there is > an irrationale case as well: > > c) software inquiries the limit, but is defective and unable to handle a > value other than the legacy one (for example by using a fixed size > array, but bzeroing the array using the results of the inquiry to > determine the length!) Obviously such software would be so horrendously > buggy that we can't possibly be held accountable for this kind of breakage.
There is one other case: object code compiled using the #define to size an array is linked (either dynamically or otherwise) with object code that was previously compiled with a different value for that #define. I'm pretty sure that's why it's an ABI issue. Of course, I welcome the change, and I'd be quite surprised if Informix up 'n fell over on it. It's about danged time. I'm sure Mr. Sommerfe and the Legions of the Truncated Surnames will agree. ;-} -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W <carls...@workingcode.com> _______________________________________________ opensolaris-arc mailing list opensolaris-arc@opensolaris.org
