http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56461
--- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-26 20:45:57 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > Created attachment 29544 [details] > gcc48-pr56461-2.patch > Sorry, I should have checked on leaks when I submitted LRA first time. The patch is ok. > Another leak fix, this time in lra. > > ==31825== 161,960 bytes in 32 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 2,722 > of 2,737 > ==31825== at 0x4A0881C: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:270) > ==31825== by 0x13150A7: xmalloc (xmalloc.c:147) > ==31825== by 0xB09EF3: lra_spill() (lra-spills.c:531) > ==31825== by 0xAEC826: lra(_IO_FILE*) (lra.c:2325) > ==31825== by 0xAA1C98: do_reload() (ira.c:4619) > ==31825== by 0xAA1E9C: rest_of_handle_reload() (ira.c:4731) > ==31825== by 0xB5BB85: execute_one_pass(opt_pass*) (passes.c:2330) > ==31825== by 0xB5BD79: execute_pass_list(opt_pass*) (passes.c:2378) > ==31825== by 0xB5BDAA: execute_pass_list(opt_pass*) (passes.c:2379) > ==31825== by 0x887CC5: expand_function(cgraph_node*) (cgraphunit.c:1640) > ==31825== by 0x888180: expand_all_functions() (cgraphunit.c:1744) > ==31825== by 0x888C0A: compile() (cgraphunit.c:2042) > > > I see another issue in LRA, but don't have a fix for it yet: > ==31825== 1,424 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 2,273 of > 2,737 > ==31825== at 0x4A0881C: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:270) > ==31825== by 0x131514F: xrealloc (xmalloc.c:177) > ==31825== by 0x5FA554: void va_heap::reserve<int>(vec<int, va_heap, > vl_embed>*&, unsigned int, bool) (vec.h:300) > ==31825== by 0x5FA205: vec<int, va_heap, vl_ptr>::reserve(unsigned int, > bool) (vec.h:1468) > ==31825== by 0x84B952: vec<int, va_heap, vl_ptr>::reserve_exact(unsigned > int) (vec.h:1482) > ==31825== by 0x84B904: vec<int, va_heap, vl_ptr>::create(unsigned int) > (vec.h:1497) > ==31825== by 0xB082A9: lra_create_live_ranges(bool) (lra-lives.c:976) > ==31825== by 0xAEC77E: lra(_IO_FILE*) (lra.c:2295) > ==31825== by 0xAA1C98: do_reload() (ira.c:4619) > ==31825== by 0xAA1E9C: rest_of_handle_reload() (ira.c:4731) > ==31825== by 0xB5BB85: execute_one_pass(opt_pass*) (passes.c:2330) > ==31825== by 0xB5BD79: execute_pass_list(opt_pass*) (passes.c:2378) > > I wonder if we shouldn't call > if (live_p) > lra_clear_live_ranges (); > before the lra_create_live_ranges (true); call in lra.c (lra), and also call > it > when setting live_p to false. Vlad? Yes, it (the two lines) should be added before lra_create_live_ranges (true) otherwise it might be a big leak as live-ranges sometimes big. Thanks for working on this, Jakub.
