On Sep 26, 2014, at 8:14 AM, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote: > * jit.dg/test-long-names.c: New test case.
> +/* 65KB */ > +#define NAME_LENGTH (65 * 1024) 65K was a tiny name back in 1999, 16M was a large name then. Today, 16M is tiny enough. And yeah, this was a customer bug report, just normal C++ code with template manglings back then and yeah, we fixed the bug and tested it out to 16M to ensure we would not hit another bug in the next decade. As far as I know, we didn’t. If you want to ensure it works nicely for the next decade test out to, say, 128M and then throw that test case away. I’d be curious if you hit any problems at 128M.
