Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 02:13:30 +0000 From: Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk> To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MAX_UID ? Message-ID: <38CC4ECA.68AA4B78@originative.co.uk> References: <38CAD957.3C839375@originative.co.uk> <38CB322D.D12ED0B0@originative.co.uk> <200003130145.RAA51429@vashon.polstra.com> <38CC4AFD.7E649664@originative.co.uk> <200003130202.SAA51491@vashon.polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Polstra wrote: > > In article <38CC4AFD.7E649664@originative.co.uk>, > Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk> wrote: > > John Polstra wrote: > > > > > > I guess it could go into <machine/limits.h> in the > > > "!defined(_ANSI_SOURCE)" section. Bruce might have a better idea. > > > > I don't think <machine/limits.h> is the right place. These are constants > > that are definately not architecture dependent. The whole problem at the > > moment is that the code is abusing architecture dependent constants in > > lieu of anything better. > > Hmm, you're right. How about <sys/syslimits.h>? That sounds ideal :-) I guess my next question is, are there any objections to #define UID_MAX ((uid_t)0-1) which would actually give us the best of both worlds. I assume that gcc optimises the calculation away so it's effectively a constant but automagically of the right size. I can see the flaw in that straight away in that uid_t isn't available in <sys/syslimits.h> On the other hand, since you may want to limit the MAX_UID (or some other paramter) independently of the size of the type then its probably best to maintain the value manually in any case. Paul. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?38CC4ECA.68AA4B78>