https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61831
--- Comment #45 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> Created attachment 34942 [details]
> Better patch
Sorry for the delay, but I noticed this new patch only yesterday!-(
> I'm not working on this, so I'm attaching the current patch in my work tree,
> before it's lost.
With this patch there is no memory leak
gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_constructor_1.f90 (19 builtin_free) and
gfortran.dg/class_array_15.f03 (12 builtin_free).
> If I remember correctly, the patch passes the testsuite without regressing.
With this patch I see a regression for gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_10.f90.
> The test in comment #41 exhibits some leaks with it though.
With the patch I see 33 builtin_free instead of 34 without the patch.
> And I haven't looked yet at Dominique's feedback in comment #43.
The test in comment #41 fails at run time when compiled with
-fsanitize=address. If I take the "complement" of the reduced test posted in
comment #43, everything works fine, but for one builtin_free less.
I did not investigated what is wrong with the test in comment #43 (will do).
> Oh, and I have to double check that the gfc_trans_subarray_assign hunk
> is really necessary.
If you are speaking of the hunk
@@ -6263,7 +6283,7 @@ gfc_trans_subarray_assign (tree dest, gfc_componen
gfc_conv_expr (&rse, expr);
- tmp = gfc_trans_scalar_assign (&lse, &rse, cm->ts, true, false, true);
+ tmp = gfc_trans_scalar_assign (&lse, &rse, cm->ts, true, true, true);
gfc_add_expr_to_block (&body, tmp);
gcc_assert (rse.ss == gfc_ss_terminator);
I think it is needed, otherwise the test in comment #41 fails at run time with
a.out(89696,0x7fff74744300) malloc: *** mach_vm_map(size=18446603338973675520)
failed (error code=3)
*** error: can't allocate region
*** set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug
Program received signal SIGSEGV: Segmentation fault - invalid memory reference.
However the hunk
@@ -4990,7 +5010,7 @@ gfc_conv_procedure_call (gfc_se * se, gfc_symbol *
tmp = gfc_deallocate_alloc_comp (e->ts.u.derived, tmp, parm_rank);
- gfc_add_expr_to_block (&se->post, tmp);
+ gfc_prepend_expr_to_block (&se->post, tmp);
}
/* Add argument checking of passing an unallocated/NULL actual to
does not seems necessary, but is the cause of the regression, i.e., no
regression without it.
The patch (without the above hunk) fixes a lot of problems and makes the code
simpler. IMO it should be submitted and the few left issues can be deferred
(with new PRs).
