From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id CF490394C831; Mon,  5 Dec 2022 20:58:18 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org CF490394C831
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1670273898;
	bh=Q6U2bkeRJkcJ9x8jxFgGrjc+AhyHguiv6PeuU1V7k4g=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=cV6v/3CUtnlh/7tUh5iugQ3KPLDy8+O76VjhBv5aG0Wnzx4PoZ4TTRLAVBq8XYrIg
	 U0d55Np8sKfpoTYCBHnnvoD9tf9dTYm9jGroIH1ShP43AjTTKwtRd6OyjFR64xIagh
	 ZVxcqN6JF6JEVnASkQvD2ms7NR/KNmb8P597HH1M=
From: "jason at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/105838] [10/11/12/13 Regression] g++ 12.1.0 runs out of
 memory or time when building const std::vector of std::strings
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2022 20:58:18 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: compile-time-hog, memory-hog
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jason at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-105838-4-nuELg9iLoi@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-105838-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-105838-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105838

--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> Even if we don't emit a loop (which I still think is the way to go for
> larger initializers because anything else means just too large code), can=
't
> there for the larger initializers simply be some variable holding a count=
er
> how many initializers have been already initialized and a single EH region
> that will perform all the cleanups based on that counter?

We already do that for cleaning up the array itself; the problem is any
temporaries created while initializing array elements.  That's why I was
thinking about a parallel array of temporaries.  Though that would only wor=
k if
all the element initializers construct the same temporaries, which is true =
in
this case but not in general.

But really I think we should try to avoid constructing an array of std::str=
ing
in the first place, as in comment #12.=