On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 08:00:37AM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote: > Le Sat, May 27, 2023 at 08:50:21PM +0000, David Holland a ?crit : > > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 09:10:34AM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote: > > > Shouldn't be MAXPATHLEN be defined as PATH_MAX - 1? > > > > No. They're the same. The existence of some old code where somebody > > didn't read the definition carefully (or that predates a clear > > definition) doesn't change that. Not sure why you think it should... > > The comment in sys/param.h: > [snip]
...has been improved, thanks. > Shouldn't MAXPATHLEN be marked as deprecated precisely because of > the unfortunate ambiguity of its name, PATH_MAX being prefered in > it's stead, and the comment modified to clearly state it is a size > and not a length? It is historic and not going anywhere; removing it would break a lot of old code. Also, I'm not sure everyone agrees with you on that distinction of "size" and "length" (even though it makes a certain amount of sense) so be careful about drawing too many conclusions. Note that some of the length constants include null-terminator space and some don't, with no particular pattern or logic other than historical usage. E.g. MAXNAMLEN and its POSIX equivalent NAME_MAX are 511 and not 512 (historically, 255 rather than 256) because they _don't_ include the space. For no particular reason. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
