From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...>
Date: 2011-11-09T01:20:30+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:40851] Re: A quiz: Re: Second patch attempt for PATH_MAX fix in ruby1.9.1- 1.9.3~rc1-3

2011/11/8 Svante Signell <svante.signell@telia.com>:
> Hello,
>
> I'm working on porting packages having PATH_MAX issues and ruby1.9.1 is
> one of them. PATH_MAX is not defined for GNU/Hurd. The code analysis
> below shows that it would be possible to use dynamic allocation of the
> buffer binary_filename using malloc and free.
>
> However, Samuel Thibault, a large contributor to GNU/Hurd and a Debiab
> Developer, advised me to ask here is it is possible or if a
> fixed-length buffer should be used? Especially if it is safe to call
> rb_dump_backtrace_with_lines from a *Unix* signal handler.
>
> So if dynamic allocation is not possible, can you in the next release
> provide a conditional definition of PATH_MAX?

At first, thank you very much for your contribution. Your mail has
both a detailed
analysis and a patch, and then we can apply it fearlessly.

We don't refuse cooperation with platform developers as far as they respect
our code maintenance and keeping code cleanness.

Cheers.