Don_Lewine@dgc.ceo.dg.com (08/27/90)
From: Don_Lewine@dgc.ceo.dg.com IEEE Std 1003.1-1988 paragraph 5.7.1.2 note 5 describes the value returned by pathconf() when _PC_PATH_MAX is used as an argument as, "The maximum length of a relative pathname when the specified directory is the working directory." I have tried this on several POSIX.1 systems. None of them seem to enforce the maximum. In fact they all return a constant (say, 1024) even if the path given to pathconf() is already longer than that. Is this conforming behavior? If it is conforming, how should a portable application determine the longest pathname a user can specify? What about _PC_NAME_MAX? May readdir() return a longer name than the value returned by pathconf() for that directory? Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 63
donn@hpfcdc.uucp (Donn Terry) (09/01/90)
From: Donn Terry <donn@hpfcdc.uucp> >IEEE Std 1003.1-1988 paragraph 5.7.1.2 note 5 describes the value >returned by pathconf() when _PC_PATH_MAX is used as an argument as, >"The maximum length of a relative pathname when the specified >directory is the working directory." >I have tried this on several POSIX.1 systems. None of them seem to >enforce the maximum. In fact they all return a constant (say, 1024) >even if the path given to pathconf() is already longer than that. >Is this conforming behavior? >If it is conforming, how should a portable application determine the >longest pathname a user can specify? This is hard to get a clear reading on from what you have written. It could either be sloppy implementation or perfectly conformant. POSIX specifically permits (in shell notation): cd / cd <1024 character pathname> cd <another such thing> ... There is no longest pathname a user can specify; there is a longest one from / and from the current working directory. Pathconf doesn't worry about what the cwd is. >What about _PC_NAME_MAX? May readdir() return a longer name than the >value returned by pathconf() for that directory? It shouldn't. No location relative issues here. Donn Terry (As usual... speaking only for myself.) Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 79