From:	Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
Message-Id:	<200005081343.PAA04371@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Subject:	Re: bug in sort.exe (Textutils-2.0)
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Mon, 8 May 2000 15:43:42 +0200 (MET DST)
In-Reply-To:	<32BA4DC6E6A@HRZ1.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de> from "Juan Manuel Guerrero" at May 08, 2000 01:51:13 PM
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> The HAVE_PATHCONF macro seems to have some "guard" function.
> But the HAVE_PATHCONF macro is *never* defined by the configure script
> nor somewhere else. This implies that the above AND relation will *always*
> be false no matter if _PC_NAME_MAX from unistd.h is defined or not.
> The consequence is that NAME_MAX_IN_DIR is *always* 255 no matter
> if LFN support is available or not.

You are probably forgetting all the other platforms that might have
HAVE_PATHCONF defined.  

> In my opinion there are at least 4 posibilities:
> 1) HAVE_PATHCONF is completely superflous and can be deleted.
>    The above line can be replaced by:
>      #if defined _PC_NAME_MAX

Hence, this choice is clearly wrong (IMHO).


I let others comment on the other choices.


Right,

							MartinS

- Raw text -