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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Precedence: bulk

> 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