Thank you to Jonathan and Paul for clarifying the scope of the discussion. I was under the impression that the goal was to move the subject at "if your code is too long you have to refactor it", which I interpreted after all as "you must be doing something wrong". Because we both proceeded by alternately replying with the same piece of information. Today I did implement a cpp program that will evaluate a file containing a formula of length N and its derivative in O(N), compiled with GCC :D. Of course my program can only treat very trivial files and is slow but for most of my tasks that does not matter. I understand (and needless to say couldn't do it better) that it may just be for now a too difficult problem to actually compile lengthy cpp. The question that I was targeting at is: What can I realistically do (implying that refactoring in the remaining project's period appears nonviable)? The formula evaluator programs helps for a subset of these problems, clearly. Are there languages with similar capabilities to cpp that I could generate into equivalently and that are as easy to learn (i.e., excluding assembly or any languages that won't permit templates or flexible types)? My initial phrasing of "how can I complie my code?" was wrong as I can see now. It should have been "how can I somehow just make it so I can evaluate it?, particularly when I see myself unable for now to transform it into equivalent shorter code?" On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 8:52 AM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. > > >
