Sylvain Beucler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: > > For starters, in code intended to be portable, it's best not > > to rely on PATH_MAX, if at all possible. At a bare minimum, > > don't use it as an array size, and don't try to allocate > > PATH_MAX bytes from the heap. On some systems, PATH_MAX > > can be very large. On the Hurd, it's not defined at all.
> Hmmm, I inherited such practices from the code I'm porting, that > looked pretty convenient :/ Would you recommend *alloc'ing as needed > and checking for ENAMETOOLONG instead? Yes.
