Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Reply-To: Cygwin List <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
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" <doctor AT fruitbat DOT org>, Cygwin List <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
From: Larry Hall <cygwin-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: Gcc/ld and long command lines (> 32k)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0404090936150.1010@gremlin.fruitbat.org>
References: <F76C9B2DA2FC4C4CA0A18E288BBCBCF7082177B1 AT nihexchange24 DOT nih DOT gov> <6 DOT 0 DOT 1 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20040409111530 DOT 03a37658 AT 127 DOT 0 DOT 0 DOT 1> <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 53 DOT 0404090936150 DOT 1010 AT gremlin DOT fruitbat DOT org>
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/