[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: On PATH_MAX
From: |
Alfred M\. Szmidt |
Subject: |
Re: On PATH_MAX |
Date: |
Fri, 04 Nov 2005 20:49:01 +0100 |
> This is completely wrong (and I made the same wrong statement
> before). First, you only need to recompile the programs using
> PATH_MAX.
Actually, not. You only need to recompile existing programs when
PATH_MAX *shrinks*.
And when it grows, since programs that use the old PATH_MAX will now
no longer work with filenames that are as long as the system supports.
- On PATH_MAX, Ludovic Courtès, 2005/11/02
- RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/03
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Marcus Brinkmann, 2005/11/03
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/11/03
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Marcus Brinkmann, 2005/11/04
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/11/04
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/11/04
- Re: On PATH_MAX,
Alfred M\. Szmidt <=
- Message not available
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/11/04
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/11/04
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Michal Suchanek, 2005/11/04
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Michal Suchanek, 2005/11/04
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/03
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/03
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/03
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/03