From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id DE02E385DC26; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 14:33:23 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org DE02E385DC26 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1585751603; bh=OsgBzINcAZI1k56dF5SGz+ztYjgTZpPXxT7q+v/id/k=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=VXpD3aUKFrStNUvIhWyzH3uYAC9XEJWI+tcCKXJ9ITsvcs8Bo3gRxHXnNy8mQOlPm 3/WVw2/avQSyoU+XFy7QvoOUchEC/oAhUMINTbKvjBOgqQLqlwA9mf45wpaB/ypLRD Phyl5riu0Nq1LUYGajnzhiWCjuhQ5nJ5+XG5/kIc= From: "vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/91858] [9/10 Regression] Compile time hog w/ complex float trigonometric functions Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 14:33:23 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: compile-time-hog X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net 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: 9.4 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 14:33:24 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D91858 --- Comment #11 from Vincent Lef=C3=A8vre -= -- (In reply to Vincent Lef=C3=A8vre from comment #10) > Paul Zimmermann says that this bug is fixed in the MPC development versio= n. I could check that the bug is actually fixed, but the does not solve the GCC issue, as the time complexity is too large. With 10000000 instead of 10000, you'll still notice that it takes too much time.=