From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23460 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2007 18:09:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 23392 invoked by uid 48); 10 Nov 2007 18:09:40 -0000 Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:09:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20071110180940.23391.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: "fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org" 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/msg00932.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #21 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-10 18:09 ------- (In reply to comment #20) > 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.) I made a build of the patched compiler that you can download from http://www.coudert.name/tmp/gfortran-i686-linux-20071110.tar.gz > 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. Yes, it is the case. Please let us know how your real-life testing goes. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30285