long command lines
Tue Jan 30 07:31:00 GMT 2001
"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.)
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
More information about the Cygwin