Date:	Mon, 21 May 2001 21:31:40 +0300
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	dj AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id:	<6480-Mon21May2001213139+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com
In-reply-to:	<200105211610.MAA25739@envy.delorie.com> (message from DJ Delorie
	on Mon, 21 May 2001 12:10:50 -0400)
Subject:	Re: Possible bash issue
References:	<CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIEEHFCDAA DOT tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be> <200105211610 DOT MAA25739 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 12:10:50 -0400
> From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
> 
> Could bash read the transfer buffer size at runtime and adapt?

Now that you ask, I think Bash already does that (or did in the
past).  I remember at one point reading someone's (Daisuke Aoyama's?)
message saying that when `system' or `spawn*' returns E2BIG, Bash
would try running the program via a response file.  E2BIG is returned
by these functions when the transfer buffer isn't large enough or a
non-DJGPP program is called with a too long command line.

Mark, is this code still in Bash?  Or did I dream?

- Raw text -