This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: For masochists: the leap o faith
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.
Senior Realtime Software Engineer
VITAL - Visual Simulation Systems
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html