From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <xry111@xry111.site>
Received: from xry111.site (xry111.site [89.208.246.23])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DFE83858D38
	for <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2022 17:40:12 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 6DFE83858D38
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=xry111.site
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xry111.site
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=xry111.site;
	s=default; t=1663954811;
	bh=abrM46oJsu1pe9ba72lECu9ZVObaMhs5u6kZOqQF/m4=;
	h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=FJDnysKXy+l/GPps9EC7s9fkcKImcf+Iz4nI1biCBEGtEcGpGP1zMO4XYHrOdoY+i
	 AN7D1IpWp4ynGKa7xZ++k/T63o02mhDfMG2LFqppGdrrXywAA6IYMWuwpBIcUqYD9z
	 c4y3/D0aQ+7/4nXeC/Hak/Bmh9mt7Ooq+UEIiE4c=
Received: from localhost.localdomain (xry111.site [IPv6:2001:470:683e::1])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature ECDSA (P-384) server-digest SHA384)
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	(Authenticated sender: xry111@xry111.site)
	by xry111.site (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6401C668D7;
	Fri, 23 Sep 2022 13:40:10 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <90f24cd806655b052a2d1ac190e6b2ed53fbbfce.camel@xry111.site>
Subject: Re: CreateProcess No such file or directory
From: Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xry111.site>
To: mizo 91 <mizo91@gmail.com>, LIU Hao <lh_mouse@126.com>
Cc: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2022 01:40:08 +0800
In-Reply-To: <CAGt5VgEKzro0uo5qQaqPZLc=Fpcw4_sLYC_-CFyGxYGWSmqAtg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
	<CAGt5VgF4tzCJMmbpu-Bq7ySQHdA_HuwbaaYJX7WSD=D4Yp068A@mail.gmail.com>
	 <a76c146a-191a-2683-fe9e-14dd3ec0ba02@126.com>
	 <CAGt5VgHdB_-iBy_3CSnexnu=0uLxV6D=w8c5k96tDawFw7oUnA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <fa6c35c1-3ec4-d72f-b234-b538ce74e223@126.com>
	 <CAGt5VgEeUOTJFz2NGsqzVN0N+GoyBy8m-_+ytgdXckav89Syew@mail.gmail.com>
	 <51543dff-d479-5e6e-e046-46ce9e64c354@126.com>
	 <CAGt5VgEKzro0uo5qQaqPZLc=Fpcw4_sLYC_-CFyGxYGWSmqAtg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.0 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD,LIKELY_SPAM_FROM,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org
List-Id: <gcc-help.gcc.gnu.org>

On Thu, 2022-09-22 at 18:50 +0200, mizo 91 via Gcc-help wrote:

> Additionaly isnt -I flags required for preprocessor only? Why gcc is
> trying to pass -I arguments to assembler program? Wouldnt you consider th=
is
> gcc driver bug than?

>From GNU assembler manual:

    -I dir
      Add directory dir to the search list for ".include" directives.

So -I flags may be for preprocessor, or for assembler.

> Ok, if indeed this is a system limitation that cannot be avoided then why
> is the clang compiler not having this problem?

Because clang emits an object file without invoking an assembler.  This
is a difference in the fundamental design of the two compilers, and you
can't change it just for some looooooong command line.

--=20
Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xry111.site>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University