Building Eterm - please more help

[Harold L Hunt II]

Ben,

I was not talking about whether or not PATH_MAX was defined... I was 
referring to the ``<''.  I cannot guarantee that such a condition would 
work on Cygwin because:

1) I have not seen it used before

2) I have not tried it myself

3) I have seen similar conditions that work find on other platforms but 
that do not work on Cygwin.


But, forget all of that.

What is important is that PATH_MAX is already defined by our system 
header, and the code in ast[...].h is not correctly detecting that 
PATH_MAX is already defined (could be a problem with the ordering of the 
includes).  So, #if 0'ing the section of ast[...].h would give us more 
information and would most likely fix the build.

Harold

Benjamin Riefenstahl wrote:

>Hi Harold,
>
>
>Harold L Hunt II <huntharo@msu.edu> writes:
>  
>
>>#if defined(PATH_MAX) && (PATH_MAX < 255)
>>#  undef PATH_MAX
>>#endif
>>#ifndef PATH_MAX
>>#  define PATH_MAX 255
>>#endif
>>
>>
>>Now, I cannot say that the (PATH_MAX < 255) conditional is actually
>>going to mean anything to the C preprocessor that we use, and I will
>>bet you money that this just breaks differently on other platforms
>>such that PATH_MAX is not being redefined (it is probably never
>>defined on those platforms).
>>    
>>
>
>I don't understand?  If PATH_MAX is not defined it defaults to 0 in
>preprocessor conditionals.  That's just the definition of the C
>language.  This may break with a Classic C (pre-ISO C) preprocessor,
>because basically *anything* can break on software that doesn't comply
>with standards, but who really wants to support Classic C these days?
>
>
>so long, benny
>
>  
>