At 11:57 AM 4/9/2004, you wrote: >On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 11:28:54AM -0400, Larry Hall wrote: >>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 think both Peter and the OP thought this through more than I had -- >once you use '@' with the gcc command line, there is still further >argument passing going on between gcc and its (cygwin) subprocesses. > >So, to bypass the 32K limit, you do need to use '@' for the initial >command line to gcc and any program that gcc calls needs to be mounted >with -X.
Ah, OK. Yeah that makes sense now. Thanks, -- 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/
