Re: Checks for getcwd(NULL, 0) and get_current_dir_name()

2012-10-20 Thread Guillem Jover
On Sat, 2012-10-20 at 10:21:03 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote: > Not that it matters for choosing a feature macro name. The best > names for such things are purely descriptive rather than referring > to a system by name anyway. i.e., HAVE_GETCWD_NULL_MALLOCS or > suchlike. Ah, even better, true. t

Re: Checks for getcwd(NULL, 0) and get_current_dir_name()

2012-10-20 Thread Roland McGrath
I'm pretty sure we were the first to support that behavior. (GNU has had a strong commitment to avoiding static limits from the beginning.) Not that it matters for choosing a feature macro name. The best names for such things are purely descriptive rather than referring to a system by name anywa

Re: Checks for getcwd(NULL, 0) and get_current_dir_name()

2012-10-19 Thread Guillem Jover
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 08:55:57 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 17:42 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > > > On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 16:15 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > AC_DEFINE([HAVE_GNU_GETCWD], [1], > > > [Define to 1 if you have support for 'getcwd(NULL, 0)'

Re: Checks for getcwd(NULL, 0) and get_current_dir_name()

2012-10-18 Thread Svante Signell
(adding bug-hurd on Cc:) On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 17:42 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 16:15 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > AC_DEFINE([HAVE_GNU_GETCWD], [1], > > [Define to 1 if you have support for 'getcwd(NULL, 0)' GNU > > extension]) > > BTW, why callin