Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!wanginst!ulowell!page
From: page@ulowell.UUCP (Bob Page)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Garbage in argv[] w/Lattice C (and arg limits)
Message-ID: <803@ulowell.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 30-Nov-86 22:02:08 EST
Article-I.D.: ulowell.803
Posted: Sun Nov 30 22:02:08 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 1-Dec-86 06:41:42 EST
References: <329@neoucom.UUCP>
Reply-To: page@ulowell.UUCP (Bob Page)
Organization: University of Lowell
Lines: 29
Keywords: Annoyance

wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) wrote in article <329@neoucom.UUCP>:
>For the momenet. I'm going to assume that in this specialized case
>that either 0x00 or 0xff can be a valid string terminator.  Is
>there a better way to do it?

I'd say go for it, until you hear more official word from Lattice.
Not many applications (including CLIs) are normally going to be
sending 0xff to the program.

>If what I described is a real bug rather than my imagination, is it
>an artifact of something that CLI does while scanning the command
>line before passing off to my program, or is LCstartup goofing it
>up?

Well, I bet it's a Lattice problem.  Another annoying problem with
Lattice's startup code is that they limit the number of arguments
that can be passed to a program.  Strange but true.  I suggest
everyone contact then and get them to remove this restriction.
The fact is, some day you will want to use a CLI replacement that
does wildcard expansion rather than have an application program
do it -- wouldn't it be a drag to say 'grep foo * */*' and have
grep only see some of the files, because Lattice's startup code
didn't feel like passing the rest through?

..Bob

PS Manx does not have the argument passing restriction.
-- 
Bob Page,  U of Lowell CS Dept.      ulowell!page,  page@ulowell.CSNET