This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug fortran/23065] MAXPATHLEN usage in fortran/{scanner,module}.c
- From: "sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 1 Aug 2005 18:13:54 -0000
- Subject: [Bug fortran/23065] MAXPATHLEN usage in fortran/{scanner,module}.c
- References: <20050725203426.23065.schwinge-bugzilla-gcc.gnu.org@nic-nac-project.de>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu 2005-08-01 18:13 -------
Subject: Re: MAXPATHLEN usage in fortran/{scanner,module}.c
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 05:48:10PM -0000, ams at gnu dot org wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: MAXPATHLEN usage in fortran/{scanner,module}.c
>
> So, does GNU define _POSIX_PATH_MAX?
>
> No.
Then GNU isn't POSIX compliant.
>
> Does GNU support pathconf()?
>
> Yes.
Use pathconf instead of ...
>
> I read the other thread where it is suggested that a non-portable
> GNU extension should be used. The gfortran source is fairly clean
> from such kludges, and I would oppose the introduction of one.
>
> In this case using getcwd(NULL, 0) (and it is easy to make this
> portable), isn't neeed. But there is nothing "kludgy" about GNU
> programs using GNU extentions.
this ugly hack.
> In either case, I have a patch in the brew that should fix all
> MAXPATHLEN/PATH_MAX issues in the whole GCC tree, which I will post as
> soon as I have tested it (should be in few days).
Don't bother with gfortran. I've regression testing a patch
that uses alloca as suggested by Andrew.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23065