This is the mail archive of the cygwin@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: long command lines (off topic by now)

To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
Subject: Re: long command lines (off topic by now)
From: Daniel Barclay <Daniel dot Barclay at digitalfocus dot com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:28:22 -0500
References: <3A70B734.A18289E@nuance.com> <3A70C7CB.AB0DA2BE@yahoo.com> <4.3.1.2.20010129110023.022b0468@pop.ma.ultranet.com> <3A75E410.1E5421C3@digitalfocus.com> <20010129165942.N30941@redhat.com>

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 04:43:44PM -0500, Daniel Barclay wrote:
> >"Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" wrote:
> >>
> >> At 10:52 AM 1/29/2001, Daniel Barclay wrote:
> >> >...
> >> >I thought GNU software tried to avoid arbitrary limit like that.  Shouldn't
> >> >the only limit be virtual memory?
> >> >
...
> >> I'm sure you can find your answer in the source if you're interested.
> >
> >What's up with your attitude?
> 
> What, specifically, are you objecting to?  The suggestion that you could
> figure this out for yourself by looking at the sources?\

Yes, because this (intended behavior) is NOT something that likely can be
figured out from the sources (actual behavior).  

Daniel
-- 
Daniel Barclay
Digital Focus
Daniel.Barclay@digitalfocus.com

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

References:
- long command lines
  - From: Mike Schuster
- Re: long command lines
  - From: Earnie Boyd
- Re: long command lines
  - From: Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
- Re: long command lines
  - From: Daniel Barclay
- Re: long command lines
  - From: Christopher Faylor

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]