On Wed, 2014-11-19 at 09:59 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/19/14 03:46, David Malcolm wrote: > > Fix this leak: > > > > 160 bytes in 5 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 154 of 228 > > at 0x4A0645D: malloc (in > > /usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so) > > by 0x5D75D4F: xrealloc (xmalloc.c:177) > > by 0x4DE1710: void > > va_heap::reserve<gcc::jit::recording::block*>(vec<gcc::jit::recording::block*, > > va_heap, vl_embed>*&, unsigned int, bool) (vec.h:310) > > by 0x4DDFAB5: vec<gcc::jit::recording::block*, va_heap, > > vl_ptr>::reserve(unsigned int, bool) (vec.h:1428) > > by 0x4DDFBFC: vec<gcc::jit::recording::block*, va_heap, > > vl_ptr>::reserve_exact(unsigned int) (vec.h:1448) > > by 0x4DDE588: vec<gcc::jit::recording::block*, va_heap, > > vl_ptr>::create(unsigned int) (vec.h:1463) > > by 0x4DD9B9F: gcc::jit::recording::function::validate() > > (jit-recording.c:2191) > > by 0x4DD7AD3: gcc::jit::recording::context::validate() > > (jit-recording.c:1005) > > by 0x4DD7660: gcc::jit::recording::context::compile() > > (jit-recording.c:848) > > by 0x4DD5BD2: gcc_jit_context_compile (libgccjit.c:2014) > > by 0x401CA4: test_jit (harness.h:190) > > by 0x401D88: main (harness.h:232) > > > > gcc/jit/ChangeLog: > > PR jit/63854 > > * jit-recording.c (recording::function::validate): Convert > > "worklist" from vec<> to autovec<> to fix a leak. > JIT space, yours to approve :-) We haven't formalized that yet, but > it'd be silly to do anything else.
FWIW, I added myself to the MAINTAINERS file as JIT maintainer as part of a change you reviewed as: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/jit/2014-q4/msg00029.html Is there a governance distinction here, between patch review vs decisions of the steering committee? i.e. do changes to the maintainers part of the MAINTAINERS file require higher-level approval? Presumably I should continue to send (non-trivial) jit patches to this list and wait for review before committing to trunk? > Anyway so formally, this is OK for the trunk. Thanks.
