So, is there a reason not to make the arg. list length grow dynamicly?
So, is there a reason not to make the arg. list length grow dynamicly?
Posted Aug 26, 2007 8:58 UTC (Sun) by wolfgang.oertl (subscriber, #7418)In reply to: So, is there a reason not to make the arg. list length grow dynamicly? by sayler
Parent article: The vi editor causes brain damage
I hope this won't cause breakage in the detection of max. arg. length of autoconf.
Posted Aug 26, 2007 23:22 UTC (Sun)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 29, 2007 13:30 UTC (Wed)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
(IIRC, it used to start small and work up, but that was much too slow).
Shouldn't be a problem. Apparently autoconf starts large and works backward. (I'm just relaying a discussion I saw on LKML though; I don't have first-hand knowledge here)So, is there a reason not to make the arg. list length grow dynamicly?
Indeed it does (although actually it's libtool).So, is there a reason not to make the arg. list length grow dynamicly?