Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Reply-To: Cygwin List Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.0.20040409131630.03a48d60@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:18:26 -0400 To: "Peter A. Castro" , Cygwin List From: Larry Hall Subject: RE: Gcc/ld and long command lines (> 32k) In-Reply-To: References: <6.0.1.1.0.20040409111530.03a37658@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:44 PM 4/9/2004, you wrote: >On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, Larry Hall wrote: > >Hi Larry, > >> 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've already responded with a more clear explaination, but I felt >compelled to respond here as well. I was making a mental leap in my >other email. Johan's original email questioned about the "-X" mount >option possibly being useful, and Chris's email talked about @file being >only useable from a non-Cygwin invocation. I tied the two together and >they worked. This is what Johan had originally asked about (both -X and >@file), and, from that context, I was responding. Sorry if it was a >little inarticulate by arrived at a conclusion without supplying my >work-sheet as proof :). For Johan's configuration, this combination >should work for him. I hadn't tried any other combinations because it >was uninteresting with respect to Johan's configuration. If it didn't >work, I would have experimented further, but it did and I didn't :) > Great, thanks Peter. I'm clear now. :-) -- 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/