From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-106167-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 27140 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2004 17:05:23 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 27126 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2004 17:05:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (195.135.220.2)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 2 Dec 2004 17:05:18 -0000
Received: from extimap.suse.de (extimap.suse.de [195.135.220.6])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92BF5119E6E3;
	Thu,  2 Dec 2004 18:05:17 +0100 (CET)
Received: from extimap.suse.de (extimap.suse.de [195.135.220.6])
	by extimap.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 34953128D67; Thu,  2 Dec 2004 18:05:17 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <425929.1102007117190.SLOX.WebMail.wwwrun@extimap.suse.de>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:05:00 -0000
From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb@suse.de>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: Compiler uses a lot of memory for large initialized arrays
Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@wasabisystems.com>, mark@codesourcery.com,
	gcc@gcc.gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412021631560.26457@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.21-251-smp i386 (JVM 1.3.1_04)
Organization: SuSE Linux AG
References: <m3wtw0u1i7.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412021631560.26457@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00129.txt.bz2

On Dec 02, 2004 05:34 PM, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> 
> > This test case works fine with 2.95.3.  Looking into the patches I
> > came across this note from you from four years ago:
> >     http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-10/msg00937.html
> 
> And hopefully you came across the November part of the thread as well: C99 
> designated initializers allow
> 
> int i[10000000] = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, /* ... */
> 9999998, 9999999, [0] = -1 };
> 
> which stops optimizing in the simplest way by writing out initializers to 
> the assembler output before the whole initializer has been parsed.

Ouch.

Do we disable this if -std!=c99?

Gr.
Steven