Re: RFC: [PATCH] Portability by avoiding PATH_MAX

On Thu, 2014-05-08 at 02:41 +0200, Steve Schnepp wrote:
> Le 7 mai 2014 16:10, "Tobias Oetiker" <[email protected]> a =E9crit :
> > Today Svante Signell wrote:
> =

> > > Well, the PATH_MAX patches affect all architectures, but without
> them
> > > rrdtool FTBFS for Hurd. For other architectures, like Linux, the
> code
> > > should work the same. With the patches memory is allocated on the
> heap,
> > > without on the stack. There should be no memory leaks in either
> case.
> >
> > ok :-) that might be a bit tricky
> =

> Would it be acceptable to revert to malloc() if and only if PATH_MAX
> is not defined ?
> =

> That would nicely minimize the patch impact on already working
> platforms.

People are advising you to not have several code patch to ease
maintenance. Of course such a decision is up to Tobi. The reason I'm
asking here is that I would like to be sure there are no problems before
proposing the patches. They are non-trivial.