9 messages in com.perforce.jamming[jamming] MAXLINE problem
FromSent OnAttachments
Domi...@csee-transport.fr14 Sep 2000 05:58 
Dave...@vignette.com14 Sep 2000 08:16 
Amau...@atsm.fr14 Sep 2000 08:43 
Karl...@cisco.com14 Sep 2000 09:35 
Dian...@yahoo.com14 Sep 2000 11:37 
Domi...@csee-transport.fr15 Sep 2000 01:18 
Dave...@vignette.com15 Sep 2000 12:09 
Paul...@morpheus.demon.co.uk15 Sep 2000 12:19 
Edwa...@yahoo.com16 Sep 2000 08:37 
Subject:[jamming] MAXLINE problem
From:Karl...@cisco.com (Karl@cisco.com)
Date:09/14/2000 09:35:13 AM
List:com.perforce.jamming

Can you copy/paste the exact error message?

FYI, we had a similar snag here on our Solaris boxes. Turned out that a faulty heuristic in the command-line "chunking" code would make a guess at how many target/filenames could be tacked onto a single command line. But that guess would cause the command buffer to overflow.

When Mark Baushke was still with us, he fixed this code to do a "backtrack and try again" approach. His patch was submitted to the official Jam depot @ perforce, but the patch has never been included in an official jam release. You might want to retrieve that patch from the jam depot and try it out.

[We've been using the patch in production for approx. a year now, with no problems.]

klash | | No problem is so formidable that you can't .|. .|. just walk away from it. .|||. .|||. .:::::::.:::::::.

In message <s9c0@csee-transport.fr>, Dominic WILLIAMS writes:

Jam is producing a command (a final link) that is too long for the command shell (on NT 4.0).

1) I left MAXLINE in jam.h set to 996 for NT, but this does not seem to be having any effect.

2) The README that comes with the jam distribution actually mentions that NT 4.0 is no longer limited to 996. So how come I am having a problem with this ?

Thanks for your help,

Dominic.

_______________________________________________ jamming mailing list - jamm@perforce.com http://maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/jamming