Re: Netsurf build failure: 'PATH_MAX' undeclared
On 2021-04-27 20:40, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 4:35 AM William ML Leslie wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2021, 6:13 am Samuel Thibault wrote:
It's not because something is economical that one should want to do
You don't even seem to realize that defining PATH_MAX *does* pose
problem, notably with the actual semantic of realpath(), due to the
semantic that posix attaches to it.
Economical would be to avoid the rich bug farm that is arbitrary but
unenforced limits. PATH_MAX is an open invitation for buffer
overflows on any modern system.
It is what it is. Folks are going to use PATH_MAX.
... therefore nobody should fix bugs?
That is bad logic. There are plenty of historic code symbols which are
known to be buggy, removed from various OS due to that, or never were
portable at all. A bad idea existing does not mean it MUST be fully
PATH_MAX is a false value even on systems where it is "supported". It
often really means the max length of the *filename* section of path and
people use it for full-path or other bad assumptions based on the symbol