[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: State of gcc 2.95 use in Debian unstable

Bill Allombert <ballombe@master.debian.org> writes:

> On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 04:22:37PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Heiko M?ller <mueller@ceos-gmbh.de> writes:
>> > We found that gcc-2.95 -Os produces object code of acceptable quality 
>> > within reasonable compilation times. gcc >=3 is less efficient w.r.t.
>> > compilation time and memory consumption and in many cases even fails 
>> > to compile our codes due to the very long expressions. The C/C++ codes
>> > generated from the computer algebra software are perhaps unusual but 
>> > not broken.
>> Can you send in a few (hopefully short) examples that fail as
>> bugreports?
> I cannot speak for Heiko, but my examples are far from short. Indeed
> they include a statement that is several megabytes long.

Short as in

double foo(double in1, double in2, ...) {
    return /* very very long formula */

or something. Not 20MB of unintresting prefix to the actual code that

> gcc exhaust all the memory available and fail with 
>  Internal compiler error:
>  virtual memory exhausted
> An gcc version that use less memory will be able to complete the
> compilation.

Or a system with more memory.

It would be intresting to see if it actualy does compile or if it get
stuck in a loop allocating memory all the time or something. Bug like
that do exist.


Reply to: