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.
> 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. 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. -- 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/
