https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97571
--- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Rimvydas (RJ) from comment #13)
> I agree that it is preferred to rewrite such look up table initialization,
> however it is not always possible due to licensing restrictions preventi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97571
--- Comment #13 from Rimvydas (RJ) ---
I agree that it is preferred to rewrite such look up table initialization,
however it is not always possible due to licensing restrictions preventing
making local modifications to the source code provided.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97571
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||compile-time-hog
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97571
--- Comment #11 from Mark J Olah ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #10)
> gfortran is mostly maintained by volunteers. I started fixing
> bugs 2 decades ago, because gfortran was the only Fortran compiler
> available for FreeBSD. I no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97571
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 06:03:16PM +, molah at ucar dot edu wrote:
> I would expect a compiler must do a reasonable job to compile correct Fortran
> code in a reasonable amount of time. The response for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97571
--- Comment #9 from Mark J Olah ---
Thank you Karl and Jerry for the suggestions on transforming the code. It is
not my own code, and I cannot modify it. It is however correct Fortran code,
that currently builds fine with GCC 10.2.0, and all ot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97571
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97571
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97571
--- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mark J Olah from comment #5)
> Whatever is happening inside the AST evaluation in this case is not only
> extraordinarily inefficient, but also apparently exponential with the size
> o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97571
--- Comment #5 from Mark J Olah ---
I reported this in bug #100235, where it was suggested this would be treated as
WONTFIX.
It seems this bug is reporting on the same issue arising from rttov:
https://nwp-saf.eumetsat.int/site/software/rttov/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97571
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||molah at ucar dot edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97571
--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #2)
> > So the new compiler does compile-time simplification already at -O0,
> > while older versions maybe not.
>
> Is this expected?
Depends. I'd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97571
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97571
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
---
14 matches
Mail list logo
