--- Comment #6 from aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-04 14:29 ---
Increase your stack size.
--
aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
S
--- Comment #5 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-12-22 17:49 ---
For me it's fine to close it, however note that 2161 was reported on a
(generated) real-world program. I don't know whether there were really 11,000
else-ifs in the real-world program, probably not.
--
http://gcc.gnu.o
--- Comment #4 from aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-22 17:18 ---
Jakub: Agreed. How can we resolve/close/etc this bug?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40760
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-22 16:29 ---
And one can always bump the stack limit if needed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40760
--- Comment #2 from aldyh at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-22 14:56 ---
The problem here is a recursive call to gimplify_stmt in gimplify_cond_expr
with the true/false statements. This would only happen on thousands of nested
ifs.
Should this really be a P2? Can't we change this to a wo
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40760
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40760
--- Comment #1 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-07-15 06:06 ---
A regression from when, well, there was no gimplifier.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
