[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: getline & getline_safe

From: Paul Edwards
Subject: Re: getline & getline_safe
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:06:22 GMT

"Derek Robert Price" <derek@ximbiot.com> wrote in message 
> >Borland C++ 3.1 for DOS (100% ISO-conforming, forget
> >K&R) has no PATH_MAX (not required in ANSI C) and
> >has FILENAME_MAX of 80.
> That's interesting, though CVS depends on a header it supplies to set
> PATH_MAX, we hope appropriately, when one can't be found.
> Is the FILENAME_MAX really 80 chars under DOS?  Is that really the max
> for something like c:\path\path\path\file.txt?

I'm not sure.

> I guess they did used to
> limit to 8.3 filenames, so that is 10 deep.  Wow.  Is anybody still
> using that?

Although I'm running Windows 98, I still normally compile
my programs with Borland C++ 3.1 for DOS.  The warnings
(bcc -w) are the best.  You know at work I use Sun's C
compiler and it doesn't even warn me when I've done:

if (x = 5)


x == 5;

I can use lint to get a warning about that, but lint gives too much
crap that I can't see anything sensible.

I have recently (1 year) started using Borland C++ 5.5.1 for
Win32, but it always generates a large debug file, and also it
has on occasion had something weird that made me revert to
the 3.1 version.

Anyway, as you point out, the main application has no
dependency on PATH_MAX, it's only the authentication, so
it is not a problem unless someone actually complains.

BFN.  Paul.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]