Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!newstop!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!srcsip!jhereg!mark
From: mark@jhereg.Minnetech.MN.ORG (Mark H. Colburn)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: of course!
Message-ID: <391@jhereg.Minnetech.MN.ORG>
Date: 25 Nov 89 06:29:58 GMT
References: <152@norsat.UUCP> <2586@unisoft.UUCP> <15769@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <17264@rpp386.cactus.org> <4526@ski.cs.vu.nl> <17303@rpp386.cactus.org> <1051@root44.co.uk> <1989Nov22.224209.28911@athena.mit.edu>
Reply-To: mark@jhereg.minnetech.mn.org (Mark H. Colburn)
Organization: Open Systems Architects, Inc., Mpls, MN
Lines: 17

In article <1989Nov22.224209.28911@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
>In article <1051@root44.co.uk> gwc@root.co.uk (Geoff Clare) writes:
>=            Another is that PATH_MAX might not be defined (it should
>=always be obtained via pathconf() in portable applications).

_POSIX_PATH_MAX will always be defined in limits.h and will always have a
value of 255. (ss2.9.2)  However, some systems have virtually unlimited 
pathname limits.  In these cases PATH_MAX will not be defined and the 
application should be smart enough to do the right thing. (ss2.9.4)

Checking pathconf for the PATH_MAX value may also yield an undefined
result.  In this case, the application should assume that pathname lengths
are unlimited, and again, do the right thing.  (ss5.7.1.3)

-- 
Mark H. Colburn                       mark@Minnetech.MN.ORG
Open Systems Architects, Inc.