--- Comment #9 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-28 19:46 ---
This problem has been solved by 16-bit tree codes:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg01721.html
--
dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-03-12 09:07 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Also adding new features should not break old features
Here we are not talking about trade-offs, that should be rather clear by now.
We are talking about fixing for real the underlying very
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-03-11
22:53 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Objective-C++ has ran into the tree number limit
Summary|objc-act.c:570: error:
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-03-11 23:48 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Don't like to name people, but I suppose this patch should be reverted:
Please, please, don't do that! Instead, let's solve the real issue with the
tree-codes limit once and for all, because
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-03-12
00:55 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Objective-C++ has ran into the tree number limit
Don't like to name people, but I suppose this patch should be reverted:
Please, please, don't do that! Instead, let's
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-03-12 01:04 ---
It's not fair to trade one feature for another (variadic templates
for obj-c++).
I agree.
There's been no discussion on the impact of fixing the tree code limit.
I note that a 15% compile time memory usage
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-12 05:05 ---
Even though Objective-C++ is not a release blocker, it would be nice for all of
the C++ patches to test with objective-C++ on and really that should be a
requirement. I rather see Objective-C++ working than C++0x.
