Eric Blake <e...@byu.net> writes: > How is that? Are these more likely to be defined across all platforms > than PATH_MAX, showing that limits.h was valid?
Yes; in particular, the Hurd generally avoids hard limits of that sort, but still has a genuine NAME_MAX, and additionally defines a nominal NGROUPS_MAX because POSIX requires it to. (OTOH, I don't believe ICC runs there anyway, so it largely depends on how you want to structure the flow-control logic.) > Also, does changing which name we look for impact whether or not the > -D_GCC_NEXT_LIMITS_H hack would be needed for your compiler? No, those three are all equivalent in that respect. Thanks! -- Aaron Ucko <ucko at ncbi>, NCBI C++ Toolkit core development group
