* #define PIPE_BUF
*/
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of David Crayford
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 5:32 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: C macro for maximum path length?
PATH_MAX on
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 09:25:07 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:
>@Gil, weren't you going to try a mkdir wombat/cd wombat endless loop and see
>where it failed?
>
My latest attempt:
# ###
#! /bin/sh
# Doc: Test limits of path length (PATH_MAX)
# and directory nesting
ERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 7:02 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: C macro for maximum path length?
It would be a courtesy to leave a citation when appending to a thread.
A reader might wish to refer to the ped text.
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:1
It would be a courtesy to leave a citation when appending to a thread.
A reader might wish to refer to the ped text.
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 08:19:34 -0500, Peter Relson wrote:
>
>The real question is not "how long can a path be [today]?" but rather "how
>long might a path be at any future point
The real question is not "how long can a path be [today]?" but rather "how
long might a path be at any future point when this compilation is
running?"
And that's why z/OS will never change the maximum path length by default
(I actually thought it was 1024, but my knowledge is only from what
M-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: C macro for maximum path length?
>
> Sorry, here is the error message.
> https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.cs3cod0/ftp550113.htm
> z/OS Unix System Services specifies the maximum file name of 255 and
&g
@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: C macro for maximum path length?
Sorry, here is the error message.
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.cs3cod0/ftp550113.htm
z/OS Unix System Services specifies the maximum file name of 255 and
path of 1023.
https://www.ibm.com
Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Charles Mills
> Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 9:41 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: C macro for maximum path length?
>
> Thanks @Gord, yes, I saw pathconf().
>
> I am starting to
s conundrum?
>
> Charles
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Charles Mills
> Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 9:41 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: C macro for maximum path len
Subject: Re: C macro for maximum path length?
Thanks @Gord, yes, I saw pathconf().
I am starting to "get" the problem.
> I suspect there's a buffer overrun hazard associated with a statically
> compiled
> PATH_MAX.
Never mind the exact lack of a macro and never mind z/OS.
t;work buffer" was kind of a lazy programmer approach.
Thanks all for your patience and explanations.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 9:08 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSER
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:49:05 -0500, Gord Tomlin wrote:
>On 2020-12-03 10:12 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
>> I believe you, but why then is the macro undefined? Why is the definition
>> now commented out?
>>
I suspect there's a buffer overrun hazard associated with a statically compiled
PATH_MAX.
On 2020-12-03 10:12 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
I believe you, but why then is the macro undefined? Why is the definition now
commented out?
>From (actually CEE.SCEEH.H(LIMITS)) on z/OS V2R4:
/*
* POSIX.1 1990 Section 2.8.5 Statement 1065 -
* these macros "shall be omitted on specific
*
#define PIPE_BUF
*/
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of David Crayford
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 5:32 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: C macro
PATH_MAX on z/OS is 1023. This is documented in lots of error messages and BPX
assembler services.
> On 3 Dec 2020, at 7:16 am, Charles Mills wrote:
>
> I have some code that compiles both under Windows Visual Studio and z/OS
> XLC.
>
> In Windows the maximum length of a file path is
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 16:43:11 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:
>This code has been changed since I last compiled it on Z but I don't think I
>changed that reference. It appears that PATH_MAX went away somewhere between
>V2R2 and V2R4. I see some comments in limits.h that are consistent with that.
>
@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 3:25 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: C macro for maximum path length?
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 15:16:10 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:
>I have some code that compiles both under Windows Visual Studio and z/OS
>XLC.
>
&g
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 15:16:10 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:
>I have some code that compiles both under Windows Visual Studio and z/OS
>XLC.
>
>In Windows the maximum length of a file path is defined by _MAX_PATH and
>__MAX_PATH (I guess MS thinks two macros are better than one).
>
>What is the
I have some code that compiles both under Windows Visual Studio and z/OS
XLC.
In Windows the maximum length of a file path is defined by _MAX_PATH and
__MAX_PATH (I guess MS thinks two macros are better than one).
What is the equivalent macro for XLC? Failing that, what *is* the maximum
path
19 matches
Mail list logo
