ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jose Alberto Fernandez <>
Subject RE: [PATCH] to regarding command line too long problem when compiling with Jikes
Date Mon, 02 Oct 2000 18:41:33 GMT
Can someone explain to me what is the big deal with passing the parameters
in the file. Is it slower? Does it has bugs? Are we waisting enourmous
amounts of resources? 

If the answer to the above questions is NO, then we should take a limit in
the low side and use the file for anything above that no matter the OS.

Jose Alberto

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dirk Weigenand []
> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 11:01 AM
> To:
> Subject: [PATCH] to regarding command line too long problem
> when compiling with Jikes
> Hello all,
> i have attempted to solve the mentioned problem the following way:
> In order to avoid some arbitrary limit when deciding whether to give
> jikes the complete list of files to compile on the command line or in
> file using the @ syntax i have done the following:
> 1. fill in the Excute object with all information given as
>    done previously
> 2. don't bother looking at length of the command line, just
>    execute
> 3. check the return value of the execute() method
> 4. if it's not equal to 0 rearrange the command line to     
>    include the list of files via the @ syntax
> 5. reset the command line of the Execute object and rerun the 
>    compile
> 6. check for exeptions thrown by execute
> My problem is with point 3. I've just tested the patch on 
> Linux with JDK
> 1.3. I don't know whether there are differences in the return 
> value with
> the various JDKs available for Linux.
> My test gives 255 for the return value. I've left a debugging 
> statement
> in the patch that prints this return value.
> The javac task will print a warning that the command line was 
> too long,
> this is done some level below executeJikesCompile in execute().
> So what i'd like you to do is try this patch and give me feedback what
> return values you get on your OS.*
> And of course if you like the patch as it is or if you have problems
> with it.
> [*] I guess this will decide whether we stick to the old way 
> because it
> is simpler to restrict the length of the command line to an arbitrary
> value than to check for all possible return values produced by all
> combinations of OS and versions of JDKs.
> regards,
> 	Dirk

View raw message