From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-482920-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 57614 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2015 21:30:13 -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
Received: (qmail 57546 invoked by uid 48); 7 Apr 2015 21:30:09 -0000
From: "steven at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/63191] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] 32-bit gcc uses excessive memory during dead store elimination with -fPIC
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 21:30:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: memory-hog
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: steven at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: steven at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-63191-4-EneSfOu9JX@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-63191-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-63191-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg00472.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63191

--- Comment #6 from Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to woodfin from comment #5)
> You could try adding a non-static function that returns an address inside Zs.
> 
> const Z* getzs() {
>   return &Zs[0];
> }

Yes, that does the trick:
  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S  %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
25244 stevenb   20   0 5964m 5.8g  30m R   100  9.3  25:03.60 cc1plus
(and counting)

Now let's see if I can come up with a more reasonable test case...