I'm pretty sure we were the first to support that behavior. (GNU has had a
strong commitment to avoiding static limits from the beginning.) Not that
it matters for choosing a feature macro name. The best names for such
things are purely descriptive rather than referring to a system by name
On Sat, 2012-10-20 at 10:21:03 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
Not that it matters for choosing a feature macro name. The best
names for such things are purely descriptive rather than referring
to a system by name anyway. i.e., HAVE_GETCWD_NULL_MALLOCS or
suchlike.
Ah, even better, true.
(adding bug-hurd on Cc:)
On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 17:42 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 16:15 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
AC_DEFINE([HAVE_GNU_GETCWD], [1],
[Define to 1 if you have support for 'getcwd(NULL, 0)' GNU
extension])
BTW, why calling it a
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 08:55:57 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 17:42 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 16:15 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
AC_DEFINE([HAVE_GNU_GETCWD], [1],
[Define to 1 if you have support for 'getcwd(NULL, 0)' GNU
