This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: I think I found a bug in the optimizer...


On Sun, Feb 27, 2000 at 09:38:49PM -0500, Mark Grosberg wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2000, Horst von Brand wrote:
> 
> > Please note that glibc does nasty things expanding str* functions inline,
> > so preprocessed source (as the bug reporting instructions demand) is really
> > necesary in cases like this one. But the preprocessed file is 12Mb in
> > size...
> 
> 12MB would take 2 days to be sent out on my modem that is piggybacked to a
> friend who has a BRI... :-(
> 
> Although, it seems to be CPP, not CC1 that is having fits. This would lead
> me to suspect that there is a bug in CPP that glibc is bringing out. 

No, it's definitely cc1.  I can reproduce this quite easily on my
system.  It's just tied into knots building a parse tree for this
monster expression.  We don't ever even get to rest_of_compilation.

> Recursive macro definitions should be caught, no? 

It's a perfectly legitimate nested macro.

I've thought for a long time that glibc's string inlines were evil;
they can double your executable size, and I've never seen them give a
performance improvement.  You can turn them off with -D__NO_STRING_INLINES,
or compile with -Os instead of -O2.

zw

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]