Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!longway!std-unix From: jms@Apple.COM (John Sovereign) Newsgroups: comp.std.unix Subject: Re: Query about Summary: NAME_MAX filesystem-dependent Message-ID: <449@longway.TIC.COM> Date: 30 Nov 89 18:01:02 GMT References: <448@longway.TIC.COM> Sender: std-unix@longway.TIC.COM Reply-To: jms@Apple.COM (John Sovereign) Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA Lines: 19 Approved: jsq@longway.tic.com (Moderator, John S. Quarterman) From: jms@Apple.COM (John Sovereign) Since NAME_MAX is filesystem-dependent, NAME_MAX is probably a poor choice for an implementation's definition of d_name, unless the implementation KNOWS that it will only talk to filesystems which limit filenames to NAME_MAX. In article <448@longway.TIC.COM> dmr@research.att.com (Dennis Ritchie) writes: >From: dmr@research.att.com (Dennis Ritchie) > >I don't have the POSIX wording at hand, but if it forbids >`struct dirent d = *readdir(dp)' then it is flaky. > POSIX (and the "historical implementation" which introduced this) is flaky. John Sovereign jms@apple.com Volume-Number: Volume 17, Number 77