Revert r333044 "Use zeroinitializer for (trailing zero portion of) large array initializers"

It caused asserts, see PR37560.

> Use zeroinitializer for (trailing zero portion of) large array initializers
> more reliably.
>
> Clang has two different ways it emits array constants (from InitListExprs and
> from APValues), and both had some ability to emit zeroinitializer, but neither
> was able to catch all cases where we could use zeroinitializer reliably. In
> particular, emitting from an APValue would fail to notice if all the explicit
> array elements happened to be zero. In addition, for large arrays where only an
> initial portion has an explicit initializer, we would emit the complete
> initializer (which could be huge) rather than emitting only the non-zero
> portion. With this change, when the element would have a suffix of more than 8
> zero elements, we emit the array constant as a packed struct of its initial
> portion followed by a zeroinitializer constant for the trailing zero portion.
>
> In passing, I found a bug where SemaInit would sometimes walk the entire array
> when checking an initializer that only covers the first few elements; that's
> fixed here to unblock testing of the rest.
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47166

llvm-svn: 333067

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 6 deletions

diff --git a/clang/test/SemaCXX/aggregate-initialization.cpp b/clang/test/SemaCXX/aggregate-initialization.cpp
index 0dfb61333ec..514473f9bcb 100644
--- a/clang/test/SemaCXX/aggregate-initialization.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/SemaCXX/aggregate-initialization.cpp
@@ -180,9 +180,3 @@ namespace IdiomaticStdArrayInitDoesNotWarn {
 
 #pragma clang diagnostic pop
 }
-
-namespace HugeArraysUseArrayFiller {
-  // All we're checking here is that initialization completes in a reasonable
-  // amount of time.
-  struct A { int n; int arr[1000 * 1000 * 1000]; } a = {1, {2}};
-}