From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-343841-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 23178 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2011 13:40:16 -0000
Received: (qmail 23095 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jan 2011 13:40:15 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:40:10 +0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/47290] [4.5/4.6 Regression] memory exhausted compiling a destructor with an infinite 'for (;;);' loop
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: memory-hog
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.5.3
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-47290-4-YydsqdHcLF@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-47290-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-47290-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:47:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-01/txt/msg01780.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47290

--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-01-18 13:39:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> We could also limit the number of iterations:
>    int i;
> 
> -  for (i = 1; VEC_iterate (eh_landing_pad, cfun->eh->lp_array, i, lp); ++i)
> +  int len = VEC_length (eh_landing_pad, cfun->eh->lp_array) * 2;
> +  for (i = 1; 
> +       VEC_iterate (eh_landing_pad, cfun->eh->lp_array, i, lp) && i < len;
> +       i++)
>      if (lp)
>        changed |= cleanup_empty_eh (lp);

won't it still say "changed" and iterate in the caller?  Note that we could
avoid the above if we'd avoid generating new landing-pads and instead moved
the old ones.