[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PATH_MAX constant expression
From: |
James Youngman |
Subject: |
Re: PATH_MAX constant expression |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:50:38 +0100 |
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Bruno Haible <address@hidden> wrote:
> I find it reasonable to use "#ifdef PATH_MAX" in front of every use of
> PATH_MAX, like POSIX requires.
I agree.
I think it would be helpful if there were some automated way of
reminding people to do that though. Many people develop on systems
which define PATH_MAX but would want their code to build and work
correctly on systems that do not.
Is the current syntax-check system flexible enough to warn about uses
of PATH_MAX outside an #idfef PATH_MAX conditional?
James.
- [PATCH] test-getcwd: don't stack-allocate PATH_MAX bytes, (continued)
- Re: PATH_MAX constant expression, Bruno Haible, 2011/06/20
- Re: PATH_MAX constant expression, Eric Blake, 2011/06/20
- Re: PATH_MAX constant expression, Jim Meyering, 2011/06/21
- Re: PATH_MAX constant expression, Eric Blake, 2011/06/21
- Re: PATH_MAX constant expression, Jim Meyering, 2011/06/21
- Re: PATH_MAX constant expression, Bruno Haible, 2011/06/23
- Re: PATH_MAX constant expression, Jim Meyering, 2011/06/24
- Re: PATH_MAX constant expression,
James Youngman <=
- Re: PATH_MAX constant expression, Eric Blake, 2011/06/21