Hi,
This is an option. We opted not to call ld directly
for gcc compilers in general, but I think it's not a
problem to make an exception for OS/2.
Brgds,
Viktor
On 2010 Feb 19, at 11:29, Maurilio Longo wrote:
> David,
>
> Knut says gcc does not create a response file, but what happens if we call ld
> or/and emxomfld directly, without passing through gcc, after having created
> the correct response file?
>
> We could end up with a solution which works with every version of gcc without
> requiring a patch at all.
>
> BTW, they build mozilla or firebird, can it be possibile that those monster
> projects have fewer files than harbour?
>
> Maurilio.
>
>
> David Arturo Macias Corona wrote:
>> Viktor:
>>
>>> It's also possible they parse the disk option file,
>>> convert it to string and pass it as plain command-line
>>> (with 32KB limit) to subprocess.
>>
>>> While disk option files are not _only_ meant to get
>>> around cmdline length limitations, but this is one
>>> of their primary functions, so IMO this is a bug in
>>> OS/2 GCC implementation and should be reported and
>>> fixed. Otherwise it defeats the purpose of disk option
>>> file almost completely.
>>
>> We know we are in same state as months ago and with Harbour grow "the
>> future catched us"
>>
>> I send a public request to some well-known people in OS/2 world
>>
>> The first response few minutes later is from Knut St. Osmundsen
>> ("bird"), the "brain" in Netlabs os2gcc development years ago ( gcc335
>> age ) and now "brain" of Sun VirtualBox too
>>
>> Message is included below and is very clear
>>
>> I hope Paul Smedley can trace this case and based in Knut proposal then
>> implement some solution
>>
>> David Macias
>>
>>
>>
>> David Arturo Macias Corona wrote:
>>> Hi All:
>>>
>>> As I do not know who/where can help us I send this message to all of you
>>> with hope of a solution
>>> Please review, response and/or redirect to proper people
>>>
>>> In Harbour for OS/2 development ( www.harbour-project.org ) we face from
>>> long time a problem using os2gcc compilers when we try to build some
>>> .dll files
>>>
>>> Tracing I found an now famous 32 Kb limit:
>>> -------------------------------------
>>> Somewhere gcc is using 32 Kb limit for our case
>>> gcc --> emxomfld.exe ( ld.exe )
>>>
>>> ( or is OS/2 limit ? :-) )
>>
>> Yes, this is an OS/2 limitation. The usual workaround is to pass the
>> arguments in a response file (emxomfld @filename.rsp). Without checking
>> all the relevant code, I'm pretty sure that the compiler/linker driver
>> (gcc) will not create a response file when invoking sub programs like
>> as, ld or emxomfld. The easiest way to hack it into doing this would be
>> to change pexecute() in libiberty/pexecute.c to create a response file
>> for arguments exceeding, say, 24 KB.
>> http://svn.netlabs.org/libc/browser/branches/libc-0.6/src/gcc/libiberty/pexecute.c#L803
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> For all future communication, could you and your team please use the
>> libc/gcc mailing list: http://svn.netlabs.org/libc#MailinglistBugs
>>
>> You can file bugs in the ticket tracker on that site, although, if it's
>> gcc related and you want it fixed soon you're probably better off filing
>> them with Paul's bug tracker. :-)
>>
>
> --
> __________
> | | | |__| Maurilio Longo
> |_|_|_|____| farmaconsult s.r.l.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB)
> Harbour@harbour-project.org
> http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB)
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
