Re: Comments on xerces-c patch please
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Svante Signell <svante.signell@telia.com> wrote:
> Maybe checking against PATH_MAX is a better idea as I did in the (in
> this case needless) wget patch proposal sent earlier to the ML. Do you
> propose to use the same test for getcwd part as well?
getcwd() is more complicated because getcwd(NULL, 0) is not specified
by POSIX [1], and is not really connected to the availability of
PATH_MAX. [1] actually has an example of how to use getcwd() portably
without imposing an arbitrary limit, which should work.
Using getcwd(NULL, 0) is also a possibility of course, but I would
test against __GLIBC__ rather than PATH_MAX to determine its
availability (and let the compilation fail if neither __GLIBC__ nor
PATH_MAX are defined). Testing for the actual behavior with an
autoconf test [2] would be the perfect thing to do, but in my view
__GLIBC__ would be an acceptable compromise.
Of course, it's ultimately the Debian and upstream maintainer's
decision to decide what is acceptable. They're the ones who take
responsibility when merging patches, who will have to maintain the
code in the long run, and who will have to handle the bug reports if
something is wrong with them.
[1] http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/getcwd.html
[2] http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf.html#Writing-Tests
> So in conclusion: Can we agree that tests can be based on PATH_MAX
> existence or not, and skip __GNU__, __GLIBC__ etc constructs?
There's no generic rule unfortunately.
--
Jérémie Koenig <jk@jk.fr.eu.org>
http://jk.fr.eu.org/
Reply to: