erichkeane added a comment. In D112659#3091501 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D112659#3091501>, @rsmith wrote:
> I wonder if more generally we should have a limit on either the size of a > pack or the number of template arguments in a template specialization, rather > than limiting only `__make_integer_seq`? I think a hand-rolled > `make_integer_sequence` implementation should also be limited in the same > way. Eg: https://godbolt.org/z/Yhb6E4vTG That seems like a reasonable error, I agree. I looked into the number of template arguments in a specialization, however, i've been looking through all the places that `TemplateArgumentListInfo::addArgument` is called, and it seems that we do this kind of all over the place... I would imagine we would want to catch this as we are adding, since if we wait until after (when it is converted to a `ASTTemplateArgumentListInfo` or something), the damage has already been done, right? Or am I taking this too literally? > I'd also be inclined to pick a smaller default limit for the more general > constraint. Maybe 64K? I think we should be aiming to pick a limit that > causes template argument list explosions to be caught before the compiler > runs out of memory and dies and before the user gets bored and interrupts the > compilation, and 16M seems a bit high for both. For the above example, we > take 6s on godbolt for 64K, and ~30s for 512K. I don't mind a 64k default, I was concerned with what I did (16 million) being too small of a limit, but I don't have a good idea of the scale of what library folks end up doing for this. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D112659/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D112659 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
