730 frames of a 400x240 pixel image at 8 bits per pixel (which is all GIF allows) is 70MB (plus 768 bytes for the palette). We should be able to load each frame of the GIF many, many times before we reach even 1GB of RAM, let alone 35GB.
The x86 version of the same editor can open this GIF in the same way with reasonable memory consumption. This is clearly an issue with either the image editor, or as seems to be the case (based on investigation in the Twitter thread) an issue with a macOS system framework the editor uses.
Not sure why you feel the need to be so belligerent on this. All the information we need to identify this as a problem specific to the M1 version of macOS is in the first tweet, with more details that give us exact numbers in a follow-up.
Uh-oh, this is sooo important, some title on the Internet is wrong!
If I read it correctly, the same app, compiled from the same code, for the same OS, but different CPU architectures, exhibits wildly different memory consumption for the same task. That's what's interesting here, at least to me, but you chose to nitpick on the title instead, just because - from what you write - it offended you somehow by not including the word "editing" at the beginning.
I mean, sure, go on, have fun, but at least don't expect your posts not be downvoted.
The x86 version of the same editor can open this GIF in the same way with reasonable memory consumption. This is clearly an issue with either the image editor, or as seems to be the case (based on investigation in the Twitter thread) an issue with a macOS system framework the editor uses.
Not sure why you feel the need to be so belligerent on this. All the information we need to identify this as a problem specific to the M1 version of macOS is in the first tweet, with more details that give us exact numbers in a follow-up.