Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
> If the hardcoded 4096 is used for a path buffer, then it should
> definitely get changed to PATH_MAX.
Agreed. Maybe head off some future platform problems...
Other arbitrary buffers should get
> a define that is appropriate for their buffers.
Most that I have seen, while looking at all this, has been used in a
path situation. There was an occasional one or so that stood out...
4096 is a fine number,
> but a define would make it easier to change and allow us to document
> why the buffer is that size. Even something like:
> /* Need an arbitrary buffer size big enough to hold strings we're building */
> #define BIG_BUFFER_SIZE 4096
> But in most cases something describing the reasoning behind the
> specific size would be better.
> On 3/1/07, Christopher Michael <cpmichael1@...> wrote:
>> Hey all,
>> While reading through E (wm) code, I noticed that in some places
>> PATH_MAX is used and in others 4096 is used (ie: char buf)...
>> I undestand what path_max is/does and how it relates to different
>> systems...my question is Do we have a preference as to which ??
>> I don't mind doing the leg work on this to correct everything and get it