From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-27358-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 31324 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2003 23:56:03 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 31310 invoked by uid 71); 6 Jan 2003 23:56:02 -0000
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 23:56:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20030106235602.31309.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
Subject: Re: middle-end/3973: GCC fails to bootstrap with 80+160MB memory /
 optimization
Reply-To: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00397.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR middle-end/3973; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: middle-end/3973: GCC fails to bootstrap with 80+160MB memory /
 optimization
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 00:45:15 +0100 (CET)

 On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
 > I would not even pretend I would disagree with you on the matter of
 > compile time and memory consumption, but every time I brought this up
 > (even with numbers from our own project), nothing really happens.
 
 Have you created high-priority PRs for such projects? That might be
 better than this PR...
 
 > So what should we do?
 
 ...which I agree to close.
 
 Gerald