Thank you so much. It helps. I apologize for adding other email lists. I will make sure to handle this more effectively in future communications. On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 10:36 AM Andrew Pinski <pinskia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 2, 2025 at 8:57 PM Geeta Dora > <techsolutionsbydesidev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Thank you. I wanted to mention that on Linux, even when using a > response file, we still encounter the same issue if the response file > exceeds 128KB in size. > > > > Does this imply that GCC enforces a limit on individual command-line > arguments (including those in response files) such that no argument should > exceed 128KB? > > There are some known issue with GCC not using response files in some > cases where it should be. > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45749 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86030 (COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS). > > The problem is GCC sometimes unwraps the response file and then passes > those options either via the command line or via an environment > variable and there is a combined limit. GCC should be using response > files instead of passing directly via command line/env variables but > nobody has implemented that yet. There is a patch floating around > trying to fix COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS but it has not been approved and > from what I remember reading the patch it was causing some testsuite > regressions (which should be fixed, IIRC the testcase needs to be > updated but I could be wrong). > > Thanks, > Andrew Pinski > > PS cross posting between these 3 lists is not a good idea and > gcc-bugs@ is for automated emails from bugzilla and not exactly looked > at. > > > > > > Best Regards, > > Geeta D > > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 10:08 AM Andrew Pinski <pinskia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, Feb 2, 2025 at 8:31 PM Geeta Dora via Gcc-bugs > >> <gcc-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > >> > Dear GCC Developers, > >> > > >> > I encountered an issue where GCC fails to compile when the total > >> > command-line argument > >> > size exceeds 128KB. > >> > > >> > In contrast, Clang can handle the same compilation scenario without > issues. > >> > > >> > Is this a known limitation in GCC, and are there any workarounds or > plans > >> > to address this? > >> > Would response files (e.g., @file) be recommended for cases like this? > >> > >> Yes a response file will solve this issue. The limit for command lines > >> is much smaller under windows and that is why they were done in the > >> first place to workaround the limitations there. > >> > >> > > >> > I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts. > >> > > >> > Reproduction Steps: (Applicable to all versions of gcc) > >> > > >> > 1) echo 'int main() { return 0; }' > test.c > >> > 2) ARGS=$(perl -e 'print "-I/tmp " x 16384') > >> > 3) gcc test.c $ARGS -o test > >> > > >> > gcc: fatal error: cannot execute > ‘/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/11/cc1’: > >> > execv: Argument list too long > >> > compilation terminated. > >> > > >> > However, clang can able to produce output. > >> > >> Well clang is not exactly a driver and links directly against the > >> front-ends so it does not need to call out to other programs*. > >> > >> *) The exception is the linker so you will run into issues there if > >> you have a lot of files to link against. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Andrew Pinski > >> > >> > > >> > Best Regards, > >> > Geeta D >
