------- Additional Comments From ams at gnu dot org 2005-08-01 18:24 ------- Subject: Re: MAXPATHLEN usage in fortran/{scanner,module}.c
> So, does GNU define _POSIX_PATH_MAX? > > No. Then GNU isn't POSIX compliant. Sorry, I meant yes. We do define _POSIX_PATH_MAX. My brain failed to communicate this to my fingers. (As for GNU being POSIX compliant, we are POSIX compliant where it makes sense) > > Does GNU support pathconf()? > > Yes. Use pathconf instead of ... > > I read the other thread where it is suggested that a non-portable > GNU extension should be used. The gfortran source is fairly clean > from such kludges, and I would oppose the introduction of one. > > In this case using getcwd(NULL, 0) (and it is easy to make this > portable), isn't neeed. But there is nothing "kludgy" about GNU > programs using GNU extentions. this ugly hack. This isn't a ugly hack. GNU programs should use GNU extentions where possible. Don't bother with gfortran. I've regression testing a patch that uses alloca as suggested by Andrew. Thanks. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23065