Re: GNU/Hurd portability patches

Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 12:41:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> | * If <limits.h> didn't define IOV_MAX, define our own. X/Open requires at
> | * least 16. (GNU Hurd apparently feel that they're not bound by X/Open,
> | * because they don't define this symbol at all.)

> I personally don't care much about those missing limits on the Hurd, but
> Thomas mentioned in
> CA+hUKG+tqFVY7Fi=WBvZ6-UsATjcPNBDtphDm7YLjevm2kxSvw(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com (and
> Samuel Thibault cited the same sentence to me now when I discussed the
> commit with him) that POSIX said "A definition of one of the symbolic
> constants in the following list shall be omitted from <limits.h> on
> specific implementations where the corresponding value is equal to or
> greater than the stated minimum, but is unspecified". So "requires at
> least 16" might be a bit too strong here, AIUI.

Oh, I missed that bit of the spec. I think "requires at least 16"
is correct anyway, but the parenthetical remark isn't really right.
Not sure if it's worth changing --- the end result is the same in
any case.

regards, tom lane