Carlos O'Donell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I understand this snippet of code in the manpage as look, this is how
the thing is defined in the header, not as sample code.
No, that's what the *real* header is there for :)
Sure :-) But that's how I understand the manpage, so maybe there's
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 10:07:59AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
The define is shown in *example* code. It doesn't say anywhere that it
must be defined.
I understand this snippet of code in the manpage as look, this is how
the thing is defined in the header, not as sample code.
No, that's
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 10:07:59AM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
The define is shown in *example* code. It doesn't say anywhere that it
must be defined.
I understand this snippet of code in the manpage as look, this is how
the thing is defined in the header, not as sample code.
No, that's
Carlos O'Donell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I understand this snippet of code in the manpage as look, this is how
the thing is defined in the header, not as sample code.
No, that's what the *real* header is there for :)
Sure :-) But that's how I understand the manpage, so maybe there's
Carlos O'Donell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I haven't looked at other unices, but if the define is mentionned in
the manpage, I guess it's for a reason. Portability comes to mind :)
The define is shown in *example* code. It doesn't say anywhere that it
must be defined.
I understand this
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 06:55:59PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
I don't know this is intentional or not, but there is no rule that we
need to define UNIX_PATH_MAX. In addition POSIX does not define its
path size (typically it's between 92 and 108, and linux is 108). If
you want to look
Carlos O'Donell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I haven't looked at other unices, but if the define is mentionned in
the manpage, I guess it's for a reason. Portability comes to mind :)
The define is shown in *example* code. It doesn't say anywhere that it
must be defined.
I understand this
At Fri, 20 Feb 2004 22:44:38 +0100,
Julien BLACHE wrote:
Reading unix(7), I understand that sys/un.h should define UNIX_PATH_MAX,
and in fact it does not.
Is this intentional ?
I don't know this is intentional or not, but there is no rule that we
need to define UNIX_PATH_MAX. In addition
GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Reading unix(7), I understand that sys/un.h should define UNIX_PATH_MAX,
and in fact it does not.
Is this intentional ?
I don't know this is intentional or not, but there is no rule that we
need to define UNIX_PATH_MAX. In addition POSIX does
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 06:55:59PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
I don't know this is intentional or not, but there is no rule that we
need to define UNIX_PATH_MAX. In addition POSIX does not define its
path size (typically it's between 92 and 108, and linux is 108). If
you want to look
At Fri, 20 Feb 2004 22:44:38 +0100,
Julien BLACHE wrote:
Reading unix(7), I understand that sys/un.h should define UNIX_PATH_MAX,
and in fact it does not.
Is this intentional ?
I don't know this is intentional or not, but there is no rule that we
need to define UNIX_PATH_MAX. In addition
GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Reading unix(7), I understand that sys/un.h should define UNIX_PATH_MAX,
and in fact it does not.
Is this intentional ?
I don't know this is intentional or not, but there is no rule that we
need to define UNIX_PATH_MAX. In addition POSIX does
Package: libc6-dev
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-11
Severity: normal
Reading unix(7), I understand that sys/un.h should define UNIX_PATH_MAX,
and in fact it does not.
Is this intentional ?
JB.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Package: libc6-dev
Version: 2.3.2.ds1-11
Severity: normal
Reading unix(7), I understand that sys/un.h should define UNIX_PATH_MAX,
and in fact it does not.
Is this intentional ?
JB.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
14 matches
Mail list logo
