Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:45:05 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com>, Tobias Roth <roth@iam.unibe.ch> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: struct dirent question Message-ID: <p06230909c10914f68909@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <44E3484D.8090905@centtech.com> References: <44E29055.3080205@centtech.com> <20060816054925.GA11651@droopy.unibe.ch> <44E3484D.8090905@centtech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:31 AM -0500 8/16/06, Eric Anderson wrote: > >My point was, that either path you take (if BSD_VISIBLE is >defined or not), you end up with d_name having a size of >255 + 1, so what's the point the having it at all? To make it clear that d_name is tied to the exact value of MAXNAMLEN (just in case that value ever changes), and it does not just happen to be 255+1 bytes for some reason that is completely unrelated to MAXNAMLEN. So if some programmer is working with the d_name variable, and *if* they actually look at this include file, then they'll immediately realize that any checks that they make should use MAXNAMLEN, and not hard-code in the 255 value. That's my 2-cents worth, at least... -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06230909c10914f68909>