http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56524
--- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-03-07 19:13:07 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > It didn't seem to be too confusing and would require only a few extra lines of > code (that have been written already). > Anyway, I guess I don't care much, so if this works, go ahead and check it in. > If you want, you might want to get rid of that ggc_free followed (almost) > immediately by ggc_atomic_cleared. Yeah, I'll fix that before submitting, thanks.
