Re: [PATCH 2/4] libbacktrace: detect executable path on windows

[Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org>]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 8:53 AM Eli Zaretskii via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> > From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org>
> > Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 06:35:21 -0800
> > Cc: gcc@hazardy.de, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> >
> > > > On Windows it seems that MAX_PATH is not
> > > > a true limit, as an extended length path may be up to 32767 bytes.
> > >
> > > The limit of 32767 characters (not bytes, AFAIK) is only applicable
> > > when using the Unicode (a.k.a. "wide") versions of the Windows Win32
> > > APIs, see
> > >
> > >   https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/fileio/maximum-file-path-limitation
> > >
> > > Since the above code uses GetModuleFileNameA, which is an "ANSI"
> > > single-byte API, it is still subject to the MAX_PATH limitation, and
> > > MAX_PATH is defined as 260 on Windows headers.
> >
> > Thanks.  Should this code be using GetModuleFileNameW?  Or would that
> > mean that the later call to open will fail?
>
> We'd need to use _wopen or somesuch, and the file name will have to be
> a wchar_t array, not a char array, yes.  So this is not very practical
> when file names need to be passed between functions, unless they are
> converted to UTF-8 (and back again before using them in Windows APIs).
>
> And note that even then, the 260-byte limit could be lifted only if
> the user has a new enough Windows version _and_ has opted in to the
> long-name feature by turning it on in the Registry.  Otherwise, file
> names used in "wide" APIs can only break the 260-byte limit if they
> use the special format "\\?\D:\foo\bar", which means file names
> specified by user outside of the program or file names that come from
> other programs will need to be reformatted to this special format.
>
> > 260 bytes does not seem like very much for a path name these days.
>
> That's true.  But complications with using longer file names are still
> a PITA on Windows, even though they are a step closer to practically
> possible.


OK, thanks.

I'd rather that the patch look like the appended.  Can someone with a
Windows system test to see what that builds and passes the tests?
Thanks.

Ian