From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21614 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2008 21:54:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 21465 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2008 21:53:28 -0000 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:20:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080117215328.21464.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: "lucier at math dot purdue dot edu" 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/msg01832.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #53 from lucier at math dot purdue dot edu 2008-01-17 21:53 ------- Subject: Re: Inordinate compile times on large routines On Jan 17, 2008, at 4:46 PM, zadeck at naturalbridge dot com wrote: > just between you and me this is most likely a regression, I, too, believe it is a regression; if you like I can come up with results from older compilers > on the other > hand, i think that people who write functions this large should be > thrown into a pit. Luckily, it was written by a code-generator, and not by hand. ;-) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854