On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 21:25, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 07:58:36AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > > > > > I would prefer to change PATH_MAX and MAXPATHLEN to an arbitrary big > > > value as, e. g. the same as on Linux, 4096, or even the biggest possible > > > plus one: 32768. The latter is probably the better value. So my choice > > > is a) > > > > Ok. What should we set CYG_MAX_PATH to initially then? I think we should > > start at 4K, until we've seen whether there are any stack size issues. > > I think we should get rid of static buffers in most cases. Some of them > might be kept in place, returning to MAX_PATH, the others should use > another technique, like alloca. As I see it, CYG_MAX_PATH should be just > a temporary measure.
"Stack issues", not static buffers - or did you mean 'stack' buffers? Anyway, yes, we should tune each individual thing to an appropriate strategy - self managing objects, alloc etc. However, CYG_MAX_PATH is simply decoupling the win32 ANSI path limit from our internal path limit. If and when we don't have an effective internal limit anymore, sure it can go. Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
