On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 08:36:37PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote: > Hi Steve, > > > So, it seems that at some point in the past, the option > > -fmax-stack-var-size was expanded to allow the placement > > of an allocatable array into static memory. This has > > a possibly unintended consequence in that automatic > > deallocation of an allocatable array does not (or can > > not) occur. > > Sounds like a bug to me, and if your test program worked > in a previous release, it's a regression. > > Probably best to open a PR. >
Thomas Seems someone from Fortran Discourse forum beat me to it. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105117 With all of the work on openmp, I wasn't sure if this was intended or not. Either way it is surprising to me that an allocatable array is placed in static memory. I went looking and found this chunk of code in trans-decl.cc (lines 743-774 where I removed the paragraph warning). /* Keep variables larger than max-stack-var-size off stack. */ if (!(sym->ns->proc_name && sym->ns->proc_name->attr.recursive) && !sym->attr.automatic && sym->attr.save != SAVE_EXPLICIT && sym->attr.save != SAVE_IMPLICIT && INTEGER_CST_P (DECL_SIZE_UNIT (decl)) && !gfc_can_put_var_on_stack (DECL_SIZE_UNIT (decl)) /* Put variable length auto array pointers always into stack. */ && (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (decl)) != POINTER_TYPE || sym->attr.dimension == 0 || sym->as->type != AS_EXPLICIT || sym->attr.pointer || sym->attr.allocatable) && !DECL_ARTIFICIAL (decl)) { if (flag_max_stack_var_size > 0 && !(sym->ns->proc_name && sym->ns->proc_name->attr.is_main_program)) gfc_warning (OPT_Wsurprising, ... sym->name, &sym->declared_at); TREE_STATIC (decl) = 1; If I set the last line to 0, I get what I expect as far as an allocatable array. I have been unable to decipher the 12 line conditional. -- Steve
