Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cica!iuvax!maytag!water!ljdickey
From: ljdickey@water.waterloo.edu (L.J.Dickey)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Commandline length?
Message-ID: <2870@water.waterloo.edu>
Date: 21 Dec 89 13:02:48 GMT
References: <510@tnosoes.UUCP>
Reply-To: ljdickey@water.waterloo.edu (L.J.Dickey)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 30

In article <510@tnosoes.UUCP> joep@tnosoes.UUCP (Joep Mathijssen) writes:
>Using Gulam and make, I want to link a program using TURBO-C.
>But there are so much .O-files that must be linked, that my list of
>files is not processed correctly. I think the commandline is limited to
>only 80 characters. It this a ST- or Gulam-limit?
>And how can I solve it?

It is clear that there is a limit, but it is bigger than 80 characters.
I did a simple experiment...   I created 10 small files with long names,
names of the form "abcdefgh.00x", where x ranged from 0 to 9.  Then,
from Gulam, I gave the command 
	vi abcdefgh.00*
The result was that I could edit some of the files, but the last one
had a truncated name.

However, when I say "echo abcd*", all of the names appear.  I did
some more experiments, creating more files with names of the form
"abcdefgh.0yx" where y ranged from 0 to 2.  It seems that Gulam
can expand much longer strings.  For instance the commands
"echo abcd*" and "rm abcd*1? abcd*2?" worked correctly.

I interpret this to mean that whatever the internal limit for Gulam
may be, it is not the as short as the limit imposed by the interface
to the operating system.

-- 
    L. J. Dickey, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Waterloo.
	ljdickey@water.UWaterloo.ca	ljdickey@water.BITNET
	ljdickey@water.UUCP		..!uunet!watmath!water!ljdickey
	ljdickey@water.waterloo.edu