--- Comment #26 from ian at airs dot com 2005-10-11 19:30 ---
Regression bugs should have target milestones.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target
--- Comment #25 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-11 19:24 ---
I don't think we can reasonably attack this for 4.1. This is something
that should be done during a stage 1.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #24 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-03 17:54
---
It somehow works (partially), but there's a lot of fallout. Ugh. I don't like
it very much. Preliminary patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-10/msg00091.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bu
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-09-12
10:08 ---
The problem is that the gimplifier always want the index field of the
constructor element to be filled. If you fix that in the obvious way (so
that "no index" means "previous index + 1"), it should be quite
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-12
10:03 ---
One problem is that we use integer tree nodes for counting from zero to N, which
is just stupid and wastes RAM (because we do not collect during building the
initializer). Of course we also store that "inde
--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-12
08:55 ---
Max memory usage on (checking-disabled) mainline is now 253149kB (on a machine
with 1GB of RAM) for C and 403669kB for C++ (!)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12245
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-25
01:30 ---
There must be a better way to add on to celt in output_init_element.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12245
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-25
01:27 ---
c-typeck.c:5987 (output_init_element) 0: 0.0%
23955160:100.0% 22770552:20.9%
13171408:99.1% 19
convert.c:671 (convert_to_integer) 52184768:37.8% 0
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-22
18:36 ---
Does anyone have the current numbers for this bug?
I know for C, the memory usage has gone down but I don't know by how much.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12245
