Mail Archives: cygwin/2004/04/09/14:30:37
At 11:57 AM 4/9/2004, you wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 11:28:54AM -0400, Larry Hall wrote:
>>Right. I think that goes along with the notion that the '@' stuff is
>>enabled for Cygwin processes invoked from non-Cygwin ones. But perhaps
>>I was unclear about what I was looking for. Peter's response seemed to
>>indicate that he tried *both* the suggested mount option and the '@file'
>>option simultaneously. It also wasn't clear whether he was using the
>>'@file' option as invoked by a Windows process (perhaps even as a variant
>>of Barry's example below) or whether he tried it from a Cygwin process
>>(directly). Ditto for the mount option. I think Peter was trying to
>>indicate that these options work but it's a little confusing given that
>>Chris's previous statements say that '@file' should be a solution for
>>Windows processes and the mount option should be a solution for Cygwin
>>processes. It's unclear whether Peter is confirming or refuting any
>>part or parts of Chris' statement. That's what I was hoping to get some
>>clarification on.
>
>I think both Peter and the OP thought this through more than I had --
>once you use '@' with the gcc command line, there is still further
>argument passing going on between gcc and its (cygwin) subprocesses.
>
>So, to bypass the 32K limit, you do need to use '@' for the initial
>command line to gcc and any program that gcc calls needs to be mounted
>with -X.
Ah, OK. Yeah that makes sense now.
Thanks,
--
Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -