On 05/29/11 01:39, James Youngman wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Markus Duft wrote:
>> right, that'd be great. now suacomp takes the work :)
>>
>> thanks very much, and apologies for bringing the work up in the first
>> place...
>>
On 05/27/11 00:08, James Youngman wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 05/26/2011 01:10 AM, Markus Duft wrote:
>>>> 2. modify the configure script to refuse to build findutils at all on
>>>> Interix unless suacomp is i
On 05/26/11 01:48, James Youngman wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Markus Duft wrote:
>> On 10/28/10 14:43, Markus Duft wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> another solution that came to my mind: i'm maintaining a library, who's
>>>> sole purpose
On 10/28/10 14:43, Markus Duft wrote:
[snip]
>> another solution that came to my mind: i'm maintaining a library, who's sole
>> purpose is to fix the incorrect behaviour of libc in some regards on interix
>> (libsuacomp [1]). it does some "bad" t
On 10/28/2010 04:16 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
[snip]
>
> That's exactly what gnulib is - a library of source code workarounds for
> broken platform functions. Are you interested in porting your
> libsuacomp fixes into gnulib, so that more GNU programs can support
> Interix out of the box?
(i'll take
On 10/28/2010 12:08 PM, Markus Duft wrote:
> On 10/28/2010 12:03 PM, James Youngman wrote:
> [snip]
>> In so far as we're likely ever to fix this problem I'd be inclined to
>> go for the 32K limit that Eric suggested. And perhaps treating
>> ENOMEM like E2
On 10/28/2010 12:03 PM, James Youngman wrote:
[snip]
> In so far as we're likely ever to fix this problem I'd be inclined to
> go for the 32K limit that Eric suggested. And perhaps treating
> ENOMEM like E2BIG when execve fails, for Interix.
mhm - that'd be ok with me.
another solution that cam
On 10/28/2010 10:55 AM, James Youngman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Markus Duft wrote:
>> through trial and error, i found out that with a 3K environment, 50K seems
>> to work well, which seems rather odd then - as arguments would be 47K in the
>> worst case
On 10/28/2010 08:33 AM, Markus Duft wrote:
[snip]
> i have no idea how we could be able to reliably find a "real" limit on
> interix, other than a configure check which tries to exec until it works...
> however, the check would need to grow the env to the maximum, too.
i c
On 10/28/2010 01:20 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 10/27/2010 05:12 PM, James Youngman wrote:
>>
>>> AFAIK, the maximum environment size
>>> on interix is 32K, if that's of any interest to you...
>>
>> Does it express the size of this limit in a way that's relevant to the
>> POSIX programming interface
On 10/27/2010 08:42 AM, Markus Duft wrote:
> On 10/23/2010 01:52 PM, James Youngman wrote:
>> Thanks. I adopted a very slightly different approach, see
>> https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?31424
>>
>> The updated code is already pushed.
>
> The patch works
On 10/23/2010 01:52 PM, James Youngman wrote:
> Thanks. I adopted a very slightly different approach, see
> https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?31424
>
> The updated code is already pushed.
The patch works as expected, thank you very much - this was really painless ;)
markus
>
> James.
>
On 10/22/2010 03:30 PM, Markus Duft wrote:
> Hey :)
>
[snip]
> It seems that max argument length is too high...
>
> Now, i'm pretty aware that interix is doing _many_ things wrong, and
> sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX) may well return a much too high number, but to
> consistentl
Hey :)
I recently updated my findutils builds on interix (work without
any patches (except a gnulib patch i already submitted), thanks
for the great work ;) ), and stumbled across a small problem:
mduft xargs $ find /usr/ | ./xargs
./xargs: /bin/echo: Cannot allocate memory
mduft xargs $ ./xar
14 matches
Mail list logo
