https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54345
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54345
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
There has been so many changes to this code since GCC 4.8.0 dealing with the
allocations of this pointer. I can't tell if this has been fixed really.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54345
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54345
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-09-24 08:52:06 UTC ---
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012, polacek at redhat dot com wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54345
>
> --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek 2012-09-21
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54345
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek 2012-09-21
15:11:08 UTC ---
Hmm. I hoped that something like this will show the leak, but no (it does a
lot of threading with -O2--through conditionals, through loop headers and also
through latches). Bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54345
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-09-20 11:12:36 UTC ---
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012, polacek at redhat dot com wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54345
>
> Marek Polacek changed:
>
>What
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54345
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||polacek at redhat dot com
--- C
