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
On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 08:44:49PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
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,
On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 21:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
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.
Yup, that's what I meant. It doesn't hurt to check the
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 07:58:36AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 21:56, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 08:10:08AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
We have two choices (no particular order of preference):
a) make MAX_PATH and posix friends the maximum
On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 09:07, Christopher Faylor wrote:
This problem is fixed in the gcc cvs trunk. I've asked Danny and Gerrit
about backporting the fix to 3.3.2. It should be trivial to do so.
Any word on this?
Rob
--
GPG key available at: http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt.
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 07:43:09AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 09:07, Christopher Faylor wrote:
This problem is fixed in the gcc cvs trunk. I've asked Danny and Gerrit
about backporting the fix to 3.3.2. It should be trivial to do so.
Any word on this?
I backported
On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 08:05, Christopher Faylor wrote:
I backported it into cygwin's 3.3.2 branch but I haven't seen Gerrit around
for a while to generate a new gcc.
Cool, thanks.
Rob
--
GPG key available at: http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt.
signature.asc
Description: This is a
Hello Robert,
On 20. November 2003 at 22:09 you wrote:
RC On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 08:05, Christopher Faylor wrote:
I backported it into cygwin's 3.3.2 branch but I haven't seen Gerrit around
for a while to generate a new gcc.
I'm out of office and it is a lot of work to do here in my company.
On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 10:35, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Hello Robert,
On 20. November 2003 at 22:09 you wrote:
RC On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 08:05, Christopher Faylor wrote:
I backported it into cygwin's 3.3.2 branch but I haven't seen Gerrit around
for a while to generate a new gcc.
I'm out
On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 21:56, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 08:10:08AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
We have two choices (no particular order of preference):
a) make MAX_PATH and posix friends the maximum length path cygwin will
accept/return. Return ENAMETOOLONG on path
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 08:10:08AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
Chris has noted that posixly correct behaviour and common practice may
diverge. I think for this scenario, that posix behaviour allows the most
accurate representation of the variety programs may encounter on cygwin
at runtime.
On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 15:43, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Yes, I've already (obviously?) been to SUSv3. I wasn't talking about
standards. I was talking about common practice.
If you have a common practice web site that you want to show me then
that might be a convincing argument. Otherwise,
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 07:07:26PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 15:43, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Yes, I've already (obviously?) been to SUSv3. I wasn't talking about
standards. I was talking about common practice.
If you have a common practice web site that you want to
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 11:45:34AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 07:07:26PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 15:43, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Yes, I've already (obviously?) been to SUSv3. I wasn't talking about
standards. I was talking about common
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
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 01:09:00PM -0600, Brian Ford wrote:
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
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
On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 06:09, Brian Ford wrote:
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
Robert Collins wrote:
Ok, so this it for tonight, my bed is calling me.
If playing with this, be sure to:
rebuild libc as well as cygwin1.dll.
be setup to debug cygwin1.dll.
I don't *think* I've changed the size of the shared stuff, but then
again, I'm pretty tired, so I'll believe anything
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 07:31:42AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
I posted a test case to the developers list when we where working on -O3
support ?two? years back - it looks like the same issue.
This problem is fixed in the gcc cvs trunk. I've asked Danny and Gerrit
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 07:31:42AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
Robert Collins wrote:
Ok, so this it for tonight, my bed is calling me.
As far as applications maing assumptions, unix file systems don't
guarantee PATH_MAX: thats an upper limit of the OS,
Christopher Faylor wrote:
For the record, I don't have any problems with changing PATH_MAX to
CYG_PATH_MAX as a first step for this change. Small steps are, as
always, appreciated.
Ok, so thats done.
What about, for a next step, simply the introduction of the thunk layer
- with only A calls
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 09:48:46AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
It is fairly unusual for PATH_MAX to be many times greater than what is
support by pathconf.
And yet:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/fpathconf.html
Yes, I've already (obviously?) been to
On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 15:43, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 09:48:46AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
It is fairly unusual for PATH_MAX to be many times greater than what is
support by pathconf.
And yet:
24 matches
Mail list logo
