From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 942DB3858420; Sun, 31 Oct 2021 20:27:21 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 942DB3858420
From: "hp at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/102939] Ridiculously long compilation times on (admittedly
 itself ridiculous) pointer declaration
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2021 20:27:21 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: compile-time-hog
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: hp at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-102939-4-cRXqhpxCcD@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-102939-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-102939-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2021 20:27:21 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102939

Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |hp at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Gabriel Ravier from comment #0)
...
> #define PTR4 PTR3 PTR3 PTR3 PTR3 PTR3 PTR3 PTR3 PTR3 PTR3 PTR3
> #define PTR5 PTR4 PTR4 PTR4 PTR4 PTR4 PTR4 PTR4 PTR4 PTR4 PTR4
> #define PTR6 PTR5 PTR5 PTR5 PTR5 PTR5 PTR5 PTR5 PTR5 PTR5 PTR5
>=20
> int PTR4 q3_var =3D 0;
...

Is the use of PTR4 instead of PTR6 or PTR5, intended to provoke comments su=
ch
as this one, or are there untold additional related observations?=