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 wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2025 at 8:57 PM Geeta Dora
> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you. I wanted to mention th
On Sun, Feb 2, 2025 at 8:57 PM Geeta Dora
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
> argu
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 sh
On Sun, Feb 2, 2025 at 8:31 PM Geeta Dora via Gcc-bugs
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 kn
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?
W
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?
W
