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 74C463858C74; Thu,  8 Jun 2023 15:01:14 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 74C463858C74
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1686236474;
	bh=7izaZ39HPwRQfnCm6iablcLYIqJCIYf/GTS3jZOhk8U=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=KOvEtE5O/2V+00ViBcwg+4Ls1BoeZY9aib7S8eUnCpRLzp17Tag9MJs7oBUDZIR6d
	 j/yxBXpU5UHU+m6lEAgr5U1bQK6djeDkv3riyuN5dslixzrAXcezGZOa7Ct01vpr9q
	 GL65ZH2B21ID2+xvls5De6ZBR/Q+fd0xpEP24uxc=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/110167] excessive compile time when optimizing
 std::to_array
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2023 15:01:14 +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: 13.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: compile-time-hog
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-110167-4-pT1TEiOH8B@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 #6 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The bottom line, however, is that this use of std::to_array is not really
reasonable.

You're asking the compiler to create a variadic pack of 262144 integers, and
then create a pack expansion for std::array<int, 262144>{arr[i]...} where i=
...
has 262144 elements in the pack.

That's going to be insanely large.

Maybe we can do this though:

  template<typename _Tp, size_t _Nm>
    [[nodiscard]]
    constexpr array<remove_cv_t<_Tp>, _Nm>
    to_array(_Tp (&__a)[_Nm])
    noexcept(is_nothrow_constructible_v<_Tp, _Tp&>)
    {
      static_assert(!is_array_v<_Tp>);
      static_assert(is_constructible_v<_Tp, _Tp&>);
      if constexpr (_Nm > 1024 && is_trivially_default_constructible_v<_Tp>
                      && is_trivially_assignable_v<_Tp&, _Tp&>)
        {
          array<_Tp, _Nm> __arr;
          for (size_t __i =3D 0; __i < _Nm; ++i)
            __arr[__i] =3D __a[__i];
          return __arr;
        }
      else if constexpr (is_constructible_v<_Tp, _Tp&>)
        return [&__a]<size_t... _Idx>(index_sequence<_Idx...>) {
          return array<remove_cv_t<_Tp>, _Nm>{{ __a[_Idx]... }};
        }(make_index_sequence<_Nm>{});
      __builtin_unreachable(); // FIXME: see PR c++/91388
    }=