Date:	Tue, 6 Aug 1996 08:39:20 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To:	Oberhumer Markus <k3040e4 AT c210 DOT edvz DOT uni-linz DOT ac DOT at>
Cc:	djgpp-workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Transfer buffer usage in `spawnXX'
In-Reply-To:	<199608052234.AAA22104@c210.edvz.uni-linz.ac.at>
Message-Id:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.960806083811.14109F-100000@is>
Mime-Version:	1.0

On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Oberhumer Markus wrote:

> > 	* as above, but when the transfer buffer is exhausted, allocate 
> > larger buffer in low memory and use that to pass the parameters, then 
> > deallocate it when the child returns.
> > 
> > The second option of course adds to the size and complexity of the code, 
> > so I wonder if it's worth the hassle (I have it written, btw) and would 
> > appreciate any comments before I decide which version to submit.  Thanks.
> 
> I think the overhead in option number two should be acceptable for 
> applications that link in dosexec.c. The GNU standards also
> suggest to avoid arbitrary limits on the length or number of *any*
> data structure, including file names, lines, files, and symbols.

I think so too, but the powers that be decided it was too much.  So the 
code I've written for this is currently ifdef'ed away.

- Raw text -