From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1631 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2007 01:16:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 1567 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2007 01:16:00 -0000 Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20071110011600.1566.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/30285] gfortran excessive memory usage with COMMON blocks in modules In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00865.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #17 from Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de 2007-11-10 01:16 ------- Subject: Re: gfortran excessive memory usage with COMMON blocks in modules fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > ------- Comment #16 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-09 23:59 ------- > (In reply to comment #15) >> I wrote this code originally, and I agree with your analysis. > > But regtesting doesn't agree with my analysis... in case of common with > bind(c,name="..."), this patch hampers the diagnosis of commons with the same > name but different labels. I've tried hard to get it rolling that way, because > I agree it's cleaner, but I couldn't. I'll propose a different approach (a > hack, to avoid writing twice the same combination of name and binding label) to > the list when it finishes regtesting. There was no BIND(C) when I wrote it :-) I'll give it a look tomorrow. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30285