Re: libc6! Cross compilation issues
> > No program that uses them unconditionally complies to 1003.1-1996.
>
> Granted (i don't have the standard here, but I believe you).
>
> The question is, what to do with those programs? Is there a standard way to
> rewrite the parts that are "broken"?
Yes, there is. In some cases it simply means calling sysconf or pathconf
and using its result in place of the compile-time constant. Other places,
however, it means changing compile-time or one-time allocations into
dynamic ones that properly reflect the fact that available virtual memory
is the only limiting factor.
> Preferable would be a cut&paste approach to fix those programs in question
> :) Maybe I should file bug reports, too. However, is it okay to insert a
> fixed value just as a hack?
I really do not want to do this. Lack of gratuitous arbitrary limits is an
aspect in which the GNU system is superior to many other systems, and to
mask this with an arbitrary kludge and abandon the principled technical
improvement would be a real shame. POSIX is on our side, and I would hope
that bug reports along with patches to do the right thing as POSIX says
(and by #ifdef it can be the same old code when there is a compile-time
constant available) would be well-received.
Reply to: