From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,e219d94b946dfc26 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "Adam Beneschan" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada.Command_Line and wildcards Date: 23 Feb 2007 11:26:42 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1172258802.581808.189020@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> References: <45dcaed8_6@news.bluewin.ch> <1172132169.423514.271890@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com> <1172249891.912137.64150@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1172257937.908673.97030@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1172258817 16528 127.0.0.1 (23 Feb 2007 19:26:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:26:57 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1172257937.908673.97030@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.7.12-1.3.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=cw1zeQwAAABOY2vF_g6V_9cdsyY_wV9w Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9470 Date: 2007-02-23T11:26:42-08:00 List-Id: On Feb 23, 11:12 am, "Hyman Rosen" wrote: > On Feb 23, 11:58 am, "Adam Beneschan" wrote: > > > This problem has a simple solution, though... Increase the size of > > the shell buffer used to hold the expansion!! > > No, that's incorrect. Many versions of UNIX have an absolute limit on > the total size of the arguments that can be passed to a process about > to execute, and will fail the exec... system calls with an E2BIG error > if that size is exceeded. No, what I meant is that they (the OS developers) increase this absolute limit in the next version of Unix. That's been my experience. Some time ago, I found that I couldn't use commands that operate on N files in a certain directory. Later, we'd get a new version of the OS, and I found that I could now use those commands I couldn't use before---but I couldn't use commands that operate on 4N files, or 5N or whatever---I don't know the exact factor. And this pattern has repeated itself several times. And it's still the same. I can now include more files than I ever have before, but the number still isn't infinite and still isn't large enough sometimes. -- Adam