From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CD521F9FD for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 00:16:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:44818 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJ3ZL-0008CI-Bf for normalperson@yhbt.net; Sun, 07 Mar 2021 19:16:19 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58248) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJ3ZI-0008CA-Nt for bug-gnulib@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Mar 2021 19:16:16 -0500 Received: from mail-oo1-xc33.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::c33]:46009) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJ3ZG-00037N-Vb for bug-gnulib@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Mar 2021 19:16:16 -0500 Received: by mail-oo1-xc33.google.com with SMTP id s23so1813897oot.12 for ; Sun, 07 Mar 2021 16:16:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sc3d.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=26ENv3me/Fc5nJlZtKfgIY8ss7XPeLl7jtR2ujPSZSY=; b=v4hjjUtXbz1jazpqkcoIUpPFJJCaDn0KOqr4gVogtynYEiZXXbA/1TGAZDW5PqL7t+ EimiKtcRi1Ezf85nFPtgJLNmHxBrAMXrgdkzd27uvieWSjfvqdo2sJJzH6TUlbN6KNpD h/rv4A5ZMtUrHzBIWbE+m2AszknWLK3ehuO+o= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=26ENv3me/Fc5nJlZtKfgIY8ss7XPeLl7jtR2ujPSZSY=; b=hAdVq7G0KrxpTX2lATMuk/xjsNcgZwHTjt8DGMxXbqP5c/529LSwoUWyCkQ3uwPlHb sqZLxiFUuleFd7P0eOs0bKgaTKjbzsZvK3F2x9A/xdOXCmmvxCu6msZsBPR5cKVk5DBN OD3EiaY+U+phmL62+NXPMkBBn8Iv5q4cSFAB+vjRYwzAdIo0GG20DQaD2T9Ctep8M/BV GZHMZC98r6GjbwbFQ3M6+otivzh/20Gl1ajO2cPqUUUURd3p7cTmSjbsT3epVLrUq1gz QRbVkb1WjRfEYbYeW0juyaBYQ7kOEH8M9RAEY/O8yQhPBpbv+TujyX8bSjZKWK3TpMD1 pISw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532MQZ2XZnmlq2PbAWLCKySJtWOorK4tYFfgLmqNEFME7QaVgWFN ta+RQUYz8oZUJjj1rgWcYXw1yIV1CIaqJgHTqwhztYIIohs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJymJS98BrVNT0tM9gJRJNhTtKJcxO5krOdsioj5ZAKEhhmTJzPNsWdh+Dt2bD5tQGetNCj/NqP7CDbTC5RwOSM= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:c697:: with SMTP id m23mr16604752ooq.28.1615162573463; Sun, 07 Mar 2021 16:16:13 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1841389.BC9EOF7Wat@omega> In-Reply-To: <1841389.BC9EOF7Wat@omega> From: Reuben Thomas Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 00:16:02 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: NAME_MAX on MingW To: Bruno Haible Cc: bug-gnulib Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007232b005bcfb57ad" Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::c33; envelope-from=rrt@sc3d.org; helo=mail-oo1-xc33.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: bug-gnulib@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Gnulib discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnulib-bounces+normalperson=yhbt.net@gnu.org Sender: "bug-gnulib" --0000000000007232b005bcfb57ad Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 at 00:14, Bruno Haible wrote: > Hi Reuben, > > > NAME_MAX is defined in limits.h. > > No. POSIX [1] specifies that it may be omitted from , and > that pathconf (_PC_NAME_MAX) is the right way to access the maximum > length of a file name component. [2] > Ah, thanks for setting me straight! --0000000000007232b005bcfb57ad Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 at 00:14, Bruno Haible= <bruno@clisp.org> wrote:
<= /div>
Hi Reuben,

> NAME_MAX is defined in limits.h.

No. POSIX [1] specifies that it may be omitted from <limits.h>, and that pathconf (_PC_NAME_MAX) is the right way to access the maximum
length of a file name component. [2]

Ah, thanks for setting me straight!
--0000000000007232b005bcfb57ad--