[Bug libstdc++/64504] Invalid free() with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG and -fwhole-program

2025-03-20 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64504 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME Status|WAITING

[Bug libstdc++/64504] Invalid free() with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG and -fwhole-program

2025-03-20 Thread andrey.vihrov at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64504 --- Comment #9 from Andrey Vihrov --- Thanks, I agree this can be closed.

[Bug libstdc++/64504] Invalid free() with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG and -fwhole-program

2025-03-20 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64504 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #8 from Jonathan W

[Bug libstdc++/64504] Invalid free() with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG and -fwhole-program

2015-06-09 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64504 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||documentation Status|UNCON

[Bug libstdc++/64504] Invalid free() with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG and -fwhole-program

2015-06-09 Thread andrey.vihrov at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64504 --- Comment #6 from Andrey Vihrov --- Thanks for your reply. You have a point: using -fwhole-program introduces more effects than needed, as evidenced by this bug report, so an anonymous namespace is safer and cleaner. In any case, in this bug r

[Bug libstdc++/64504] Invalid free() with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG and -fwhole-program

2015-01-26 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64504 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Andrey Vihrov from comment #2) > , and there is no warning without -fwhole-program. Of course, I can get the > same effect by making everything "static", but this depends on me > remembering to

[Bug libstdc++/64504] Invalid free() with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG and -fwhole-program

2015-01-26 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64504 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug libstdc++/64504] Invalid free() with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG and -fwhole-program

2015-01-25 Thread andrey.vihrov at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64504 --- Comment #3 from Andrey Vihrov --- I compiled the example program without and with -fwhole-program to assembly code, and here are the differences: http://pastie.org/9859649 As I understand, normally the ".weak" directive ensures that there is

[Bug libstdc++/64504] Invalid free() with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG and -fwhole-program

2015-01-06 Thread andrey.vihrov at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64504 --- Comment #2 from Andrey Vihrov --- Thanks for a fast reply! My use case for these two (amongst several others) options together is competitive programming, in which a contestant is required a write a one-source-file solution, test it locally

[Bug libstdc++/64504] Invalid free() with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG and -fwhole-program

2015-01-06 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64504 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Andrey Vihrov from comment #0) > -fwhole-program is that it can be used with one source file that includes > standard library headers and links with the standard library. If this is > wrong, th