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 4A7C53858438; Fri,  9 Jun 2023 07:00:45 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4A7C53858438
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1686294045;
	bh=4UV6cGnWdyB6BuBxvctg+X8O55YQmk2/YlAhIEr6Or0=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=DwoZVbeIbVaSqU27+88eR6hfDwZBDkM5ngl9yTwUBwA4d8JH6oxgX8UCxB0YHeWQ2
	 jm3QB1CYcfvmOhM2CuFbnhbZarhyHWFLqRWDNPuFkdyq2V4nQMzbC/X1BQLe4GvyCK
	 ry0ZMBFxFNfbMU8pxy07pGavavxtNdi7CFpkwR4I=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/110167] excessive compile time for std::to_array with
 huge arrays
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2023 07:00:44 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: compile-time-hog
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-110167-4-kXyUi9lAjY@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110167-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110167-4@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=3D110167

--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
It's also very bad for code size, so yes, a loopy implementation is very
much prefered even for a much smaller threshold than 1024!=