On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 20:49 +0100, Michal Suchanek wrote: > On 11/4/05, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
They break. But you aren't thinking about the big picture. PATH_MAX growth is *very* rare, and it is almost always the result of a change in a single program. The rest of the world, in practice, can almost always wait for the next release cycle. shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
