[Bug middle-end/21706] MAXPATHLEN usage in [gcc]/gcc/tlink.c

2005-06-19 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-19 14:00 --- Confirmed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW E

[Bug middle-end/21706] MAXPATHLEN usage in [gcc]/gcc/tlink.c

2005-05-30 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||21824 nThis|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21706

[Bug middle-end/21706] MAXPATHLEN usage in [gcc]/gcc/tlink.c

2005-05-26 Thread ams at gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From ams at gnu dot org 2005-05-26 12:59 --- (In reply to comment #3) > Like most POSIX limits PATH_MAX may not be defined if the actual limit is not > > fixed. Correct, and GNU doesn't have such a limit for the length of filenames, the number of arguments pa

[Bug middle-end/21706] MAXPATHLEN usage in [gcc]/gcc/tlink.c

2005-05-22 Thread schwab at suse dot de
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2005-05-22 15:36 --- Like most POSIX limits PATH_MAX may not be defined if the actual limit is not fixed. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21706

[Bug middle-end/21706] MAXPATHLEN usage in [gcc]/gcc/tlink.c

2005-05-22 Thread gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-05-22 15:35 --- Subject: Re: MAXPATHLEN usage in [gcc]/gcc/tlink.c "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | What about using PATH_MAX which is part of the POSIX standard? I think the point was

[Bug middle-end/21706] MAXPATHLEN usage in [gcc]/gcc/tlink.c

2005-05-22 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-22 14:04 --- What about using PATH_MAX which is part of the POSIX standard? -- What|Removed |Added