https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Gerhard Steinmetz from comment #3) > I do agree, that some extra temporary data is necessary and there > should be a practical (high) limit for something like that. > > Let the helper buffers be five or ten times the amount of the > effectively written data. That's OK. > > But it's not a billion times as suggested by the huge number > 18446744065119617024. Something IS going wrong here. > I agree, I don't understand this either.
