On 07/06/16 04:27, Tobias Stoeckmann wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 01:27:52AM -0400, Andrew Gregory wrote: >> Since we're already talking about unlikely scenarios... My reading of >> readlink(2) and readlink(3p) suggest this might still run into >> problems on oddly configured systems. POSIX leaves up to the >> implementation what happens if bufsize > SSIZE_MAX and nothing >> guarantees that PATH_MAX is less than SSIZE_MAX. > > That is true, in fact we would have to check if PATH_MAX is defined > at all. If it's not there, we actually would have to call path_conf > to figure it out. And even then it might be -1 to show that we really > have no limits at all. > > But on the bright side, "currently" this is proven by reality to be > no issue, after all nobody filed a bug report for his system, that > pacman does not compile. ;)
Because we do check for PATH_MAX and then define it! configure.ac:PATH_MAX_DEFINED
