On 05/11/2015 02:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/11/2015 12:57 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/11/2015 08:03 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
My preference would be to replace the static with a pointer and
placement-new with proper new and delete
Actually, on second thought, there really doesn
On 05/11/2015 12:57 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/11/2015 08:03 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
My preference would be to replace the static with a pointer and
placement-new with proper new and delete
Actually, on second thought, there really doesn't seem to be a need for
that. The patch sho
On 05/11/2015 08:03 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
My preference would be to replace the static with a pointer and
placement-new with proper new and delete, but see:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00910.html
Agreed.
Jason
On 11/05/15 03:34, Patrick Palka wrote:
In gcc/cp/error.c we initialize the C++ pretty printer object twice:
first during statics initialization and later in a placement-new in
init_error(). This double-initialization causes a memory leak of about
7kb according to valgrind. I don't see a reason
On 11/05/15 03:34, Patrick Palka wrote:
In gcc/cp/error.c we initialize the C++ pretty printer object twice:
first during statics initialization and later in a placement-new in
init_error(). This double-initialization causes a memory leak of about
7kb according to valgrind. I don't see a reason
In gcc/cp/error.c we initialize the C++ pretty printer object twice:
first during statics initialization and later in a placement-new in
init_error(). This double-initialization causes a memory leak of about
7kb according to valgrind. I don't see a reason to initialize the
object a second time so
