This patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-07/msg00165.html
causes the regression: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32748 The only relevant change is Index: gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c =================================================================== --- gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c (revision 126214) +++ gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c (working copy) @@ -2276,6 +2276,7 @@ gfc_build_builtin_function_decls (void) (PREFIX("internal_realloc")), pvoid_type_node, 2, pvoid_type_node, gfc_index_int_type_node); + DECL_IS_MALLOC (gfor_fndecl_internal_realloc) = 1; gfor_fndecl_allocate = gfc_build_library_function_decl (get_identifier (PREFIX("allocate")), In calls.c, there are comments: /* The return value from a malloc-like function can not alias anything else. */ It looks like gcc assumes a functon marked with DECL_IS_MALLOC won't return an address which can alias something else. But it isn't true for realloc. Now, the qestions are 1. Can gcc make such an assumption? 2. Can realloc be marked as DECL_IS_MALLOC. BTW, glibc also marks realloc with __attribute_malloc__. H.J.
