Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <3A76DEB9.B839CFD4@digitalfocus.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:33:13 -0500
From: Daniel Barclay <Daniel DOT Barclay AT digitalfocus DOT com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: long command lines
References: <3A70B734 DOT A18289E AT nuance DOT com>
	 <3A70C7CB DOT AB0DA2BE AT yahoo DOT com>
	 <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20010129110023 DOT 022b0468 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20010129170117 DOT 02253ce8 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

"Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" wrote:
> 
> At 04:43 PM 1/29/2001, 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?
> > > >
> > > >That is, shouldn't bash keep reallocating (enlarging) its buffer until the
> > > >pattern has been expanding, or until it runs out of memory?
> > >
> > > I'm sure you can find your answer in the source if you're interested.
> >
> >What's up with your attitude?
> 
> Why do you assume my response implies "attitude" on my part?  You asked,
> "shouldn't bash keep reallocating (enlarging) its buffer until the pattern
> has been expanding, or until it runs out of memory?"  From that, I concluded
> that you didn't know whether bash actually did this or not.  Looking at the
> source would tell you, which is why I made that suggestion.  If my laconic
> response offended you, sorry.

Okay, sorry for taking it as more than you meant.

(I was trying to confirm something that I'd heard a couple of years ago, that 
GNU (or FSF, rather) tried to avoid arbitrary limits, although I've hit limits 
(on Linux) that seem to be arbitrary.  (Maybe they're external to the GNU software,
as Mumit explained.)


Daniel
-- 
Daniel Barclay
Digital Focus
Daniel DOT Barclay AT digitalfocus DOT com

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