NetBSD-Bugs archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: misc/50166

El 31/08/15 a les 01:15, Antti Kantee ha escrit:
  > If you want to keep it simple, I could switch it to use uname instead of
  > will break cross-compiling but AFAICS the whole purpose of this script
  > is to bootstrap make on
  > non-NetBSD systems, which is a very native-build oriented end, and I
  > doubt cross-compiling was
  > ever intended to work here anyways.
  > Does that sound good?

  I assume you mean cross-compiling in the Canadian sense, i.e. building
  the tools for another system.  I don't know if that works or is intended
  to work.  You can ask and observe the outcry
  or lack thereof.

  Testing for availability of MAXPATHLEN would be better, though.  I guess
  you can just look at some tool using MAXPATHLEN and determine what you
  need to include so that you can test if it's available or not.


I just realized there's a much simpler way around this, if we want to test for
MAXPATHLEN as you suggest, autoconf really isn't necessary as it can be done
directly in C pre-processor.

See attached patch, please let me know what you think.

Robert Millan
Index: rumpkernel-0~20150715/
--- rumpkernel-0~20150715.orig/	2015-07-23 22:54:05.000000000 +0200
+++ rumpkernel-0~20150715/	2015-09-05 12:31:02.556270631 +0200
@@ -503,4 +503,11 @@
 #define MAX(a, b) ((a > b) ? a : b)
+/* GNU/Hurd systems lack MAXPATHLEN */
+#include <limits.h>
+#warning "MAXPATHLEN undefined on this system, forcing an arbitrary limit"
+#define MAXPATHLEN	4096
 #endif /* _MAKE_H_ */

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index