Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 04:22:37PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> Heiko M?ller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 fails. > 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. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]