Re: [patch, fortran] Fix PR 82567

2017-10-18 Thread Thomas Koenig
Hi Jerry and Steve, Well I know 42 is the answer to the ultimate question of the universe so this must be OK. I just don't know what the question is. OK and thanks, Jerry +#define CONSTR_LEN_MAX 42 Actually, I was wondering about the choice myself. With most common hardware having fairly

Re: [patch, fortran] Fix PR 82567

2017-10-18 Thread Mikael Morin
Le 18/10/2017 à 04:05, Steve Kargl a écrit : On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 06:14:16PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote: On 10/17/2017 03:36 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote: Hello world, this patch fixes a regression with long compile times, which came about due to our handling of array constructors at compile

Re: [patch, fortran] Fix PR 82567

2017-10-17 Thread Steve Kargl
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 06:14:16PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote: > On 10/17/2017 03:36 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote: > > Hello world, > > > > this patch fixes a regression with long compile times, > > which came about due to our handling of array constructors > > at compile time.  This, togeteher with a

Re: [patch, fortran] Fix PR 82567

2017-10-17 Thread Jerry DeLisle
On 10/17/2017 03:36 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote: > Hello world, > > this patch fixes a regression with long compile times, > which came about due to our handling of array constructors > at compile time.  This, togeteher with a simplification in > front end optimization, led to long compile times and

[patch, fortran] Fix PR 82567

2017-10-17 Thread Thomas Koenig
Hello world, this patch fixes a regression with long compile times, which came about due to our handling of array constructors at compile time. This, togeteher with a simplification in front end optimization, led to long compile times and large code. Regression-tested. OK for trunk and the