From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18834 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2008 21:47:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 18615 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2008 21:46:37 -0000 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:07:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080117214637.18614.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/26854] Inordinate compile times on large routines In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "zadeck at naturalbridge dot com" 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: 2008-01/txt/msg01830.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #52 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2008-01-17 21:46 ------- Subject: Re: Inordinate compile times on large routines rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > ------- Comment #51 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-17 21:43 ------- > As this isn't even marked at a regression, you can fix it whenever you like ;) > > Only regressions have a target milestone before they are actually fixed, > though. > > > just between you and me this is most likely a regression, on the other hand, i think that people who write functions this large should be thrown into a pit. kenny -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854