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 262333858416; Mon,  5 Jun 2023 21:25:43 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 262333858416
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1686000344;
	bh=mTQC6caLz+2H6dhS6zrA1Qs49NM+1f40GhgYQnJk0i4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=b8Sx6MJ4kyKZAikxcJ/eqj8N1WfXIqMMNJRGdTrClnY/ncxKHYCth0SG58NKWgYI+
	 BvSC4J0k9pkX2jtGCTu3U4Spb9M+fhGjbtS3rGM/18Pb8lf/K84v3zR8GIV74ZhY1+
	 jeUVdwZPO7VYmr99ZeI3wN9cS3qmr0LzIePZ4FvA=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/12245] [10/11/12/13/14 regression] Uses lots of memory when
 compiling large initialized arrays
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2023 21:25:41 +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: 3.3.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: memory-hog
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
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-12245-4-NvIHlGM12x@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-12245-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-12245-4@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=3D12245

--- Comment #83 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Carlos Galvez from comment #82)
> Hi,
>=20
> This bug is still present in GCC 11.3.0. My use case is using large
> std::arrays. NOTE: the problem immediately goes away if the arrays are not
> initialized, but naturally we want to always initialize our variables to
> prevent accessing uninitialized data:
>=20
> -std::array<Foo, 1000000> data{};
> +std::array<Foo, 1000000> data;

Note the C++ issue listed in comment #82 is a different issue and I think w=
as
improved for GCC 13.=