[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: On PATH_MAX
From: |
Michal Suchanek |
Subject: |
Re: On PATH_MAX |
Date: |
Fri, 4 Nov 2005 21:21:10 +0100 |
On 11/4/05, Jonathan S. Shapiro <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 08:00 +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> > This is completely wrong (and I made the same wrong statement before).
> > First, you only need to recompile the programs using PATH_MAX.
>
> Actually, not. You only need to recompile existing programs when
> PATH_MAX *shrinks*.
>
I wonder what happens to all those programs that use PATH_MAX to
allocate a static buffer and then receive a longer pathname bacause
the constant has been increased.
Thanks
Michal
--
Support the freedom of music!
Maybe it's a weird genre .. but weird is *not* illegal.
Maybe next time they will send a special forces commando
to your picnic .. because they think you are weird.
www.music-versus-guns.org http://en.policejnistat.cz
- RE: On PATH_MAX, (continued)
- RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/03
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Marcus Brinkmann, 2005/11/03
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/11/03
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Marcus Brinkmann, 2005/11/04
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/11/04
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/11/04
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/11/04
- Message not available
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/11/04
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/11/04
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Michal Suchanek, 2005/11/04
- Re: On PATH_MAX,
Michal Suchanek <=
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/03
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/03
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/03
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/03
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/03
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/04