Re: .ONESHELL enhancement?

Matt McCutchen <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.gnu.make.devel
Message-ID <1254712525.2035.30.camel@localhost>
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 10:55 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Matt McCutchen wrote on Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 09:51:25AM CEST:
> > On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 10:12 +0000, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > 
> > > As another minor point, constructs used to avoid shell command line length
> > > limitations may break with this optimization.
> > 
> > Is it still a problem to pass the shell a long multiline argument with
> > -c?
> 
> Yes, but I'm not sure what you mean here.

Maybe what I should have asked is, exactly what "shell command line
length limitations" were you referring to?

I am aware that Linux limits the argument length.  I tested on my
computer and the limit appears to be 131071 characters.  IMO, any
command script even close to that length ought to be factored out into a
separate file, so I don't see that limit being a problem.

> > If so, make could use a pipe or a temporary file.
> 
> Not sure what you're after here.

If there's any kind of length limitation with -c (whether from the shell
or the OS), possible alternatives would include running $(SHELL) and
piping the script to its stdin, or writing the script to a temporary
file and running "$(SHELL) TMPFILE".

-- 
Matt
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.