Date:	Sun, 20 May 2001 18:11:16 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	"Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Possible bash issue
In-Reply-To:	<3B0599E9.21329.13FC05@localhost>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010520181022.23429F-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
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

On Fri, 18 May 2001, Mark E. wrote:

> > So is this likely to be a bug in bash, or a libc problem (my
> > bash is linked against stock 2.03)?
> 
> I made the example stand-alone (by providing a script that performs the same 
> function as --fallback-echo) and I couldn't reproduce the problem. I changed 
> to a previous bash 2.04 and also got the same answer. bash 2.05 also gives 
> the same answer. I added a statement to output the i variable and it stops at 
> 16 every time

What does this result (the loop stops at 16) mean in the terms of the max 
command-line length?

- Raw text -