From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5506 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2002 00:19:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 5487 invoked by uid 61); 11 Dec 2002 00:19:46 -0000 Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:19:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021211001946.5486.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at From: bangerth@dealii.org Reply-To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: middle-end/3973: GCC fails to bootstrap with 80+160MB memory / optimization X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00605.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: GCC fails to bootstrap with 80+160MB memory / optimization State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback State-Changed-By: bangerth State-Changed-When: Tue Dec 10 16:19:45 2002 State-Changed-Why: Gerald, I hate to step on your toes, but I guess there is not much that can be done about this report -- newer gccs do more optimization, and they need more memory and compile time. Do you agree that there are probably better testcases for this kind of problem in the database? Cheers Wolfgang http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=3973