From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23087 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2007 15:18:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 23035 invoked by uid 48); 10 Nov 2007 15:17:51 -0000 Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:18:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20071110151751.23034.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: "anlauf at gmx 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/msg00903.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #20 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2007-11-10 15:17 ------- Tobias, > Harald, can you test the patch at > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-11/msg00552.html > with your real-world program? I would love to test it with a i586/i686-compatible build. (f951 should be sufficient that can be used as a replacement in one of those regular builds provided on FX's web page. Unfortunately I don't have the resourced to build gfortran myself.) > And for the other tests I have, the compile time does not > significantly change (too much noise to see the effect). The essential problem was actually the virtual memory used by f951 when I last tried to compile the app with MPI enabled. I think the first "benchmark" is to have the module files of the reworked example to all have the same size and essentially same contents. >>From comment #14 I presume that this will indeed be the case. Thanks, -ha -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30285