https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86030
--- Comment #14 from John Soo <john.soo+gcc-bugzilla at arista dot com> --- > Here though it seems that you are dealing with another sort of limit which is > much larger (I have seen 128K being mentioned on the GH page). If this > somehow corrupts the command line, it wouldn't help if that command line went > into a response file because it would still be wrong. To my knowledge, > Linux-based systems don't have a command line length limitation, so I can't > see how a response file approach would be useful at the point where the > subprocess is spawned. Whether something similar can be used at an earlier > point to save it from the 128K limit, whatever it is, is unknown to me. It is a much larger limit (ARG_MAX resulting in E2BIG), but it is fundamentally the same problem. I think we should assume that the command line is correct and still respect ARG_MAX on linux/unix systems, too. It seems to me that the temporary response file is the best way to do this.
