On Fri, 20 Oct 2023, 23:04 Paul Smith via Gcc-help, <gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2023-10-20 at 23:08 +0200, Kai Song via Gcc-help wrote: > > Yes. I have invested time on my end to cause some understanding for > > an issue. > > Maybe I can provide context. Note I'm not a GCC developer although I > have worked on compiler implementations in the past. > > The C++ standard defines an abstract definition. Individual > implementations of compilers for the C++ standard will have limitations > on the abstract definition, obviously: computers are not abstract and > so they are limited. > And this is explicitly called out in the C++ standard: https://eel.is/c++draft/intro.compliance#general-2.1 https://eel.is/c++draft/implimits Kai, we are not sceptics who are doubting your marvelous theories. It is an empirical fact that gcc will fail to compile ridiculously large functions written in your preferred coding style. Some of us have tried to suggest alternatives that might have more success. At this point I consider any further engagement in this thread to be a waste of time. You have answers to your questions now, but you seem unwilling to take the advice given. Good luck compiling your ridiculously constructed programs.
