From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-x42e.google.com (mail-wr1-x42e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42e]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AA193858410; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 16:42:16 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 8AA193858410 Received: by mail-wr1-x42e.google.com with SMTP id v17so17053422wrv.9; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 09:42:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FC7lPin7OhuETR7bFOKT6xwm6zRWVqbyBY3NXeyo10g=; b=5MScDjq3BpJlTmSts+zVw/VZCf7jSyDwGVrtS1FXNmMqWPB4apvolRgJPIpdbxKLWJ t7CvaycK4GI2HOgKIzRkHdQY9gTImtVicoqUVwr3M7pp13psR6KWc+5ifiF/1QpMnv1s BXeSxHt0qfclO+my2UO3V2xBbGH8xVBb5zDykN96uAs768GDSyZ1SoDstB9Yk5u6duo5 35h8Z87hKyFF2/HEw4H9eev2Jo9g83B06GhJ4/Y5SNtr/WNEAunKcpl7Htxz/Q28O3Kq TzFVYVf5QddOlMuUkhMiso25zOWEo8Z30fIictFWYKI+a+dQ9oddJJWsvb30tfAqFp1o pvcw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530xystnh4DnhRYnJQ9rdceTbMCc8pXAW4Rz6cPv7EaPJX1Yfn1E yvYSICG4T+5DM8lf76tb+i8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy4dxBpKoNjyAarXc5COJmcvFl1lAHLb+owRKCFQoS/ygrO8w25uloehu/xPS1SWz3D3pPYrA== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:19c5:: with SMTP id 188mr12942065wmz.145.1635525735132; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 09:42:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbbrfq (dynamic-2bq7di4u2lfl4qjka9-pd01.res.v6.highway.a1.net. [2001:871:227:33a8:f6a3:c58c:7641:e771]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o26sm9196917wmc.17.2021.10.29.09.42.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 29 Oct 2021 09:42:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 18:42:12 +0200 From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer To: Jerry D Cc: rep.dot.nop@gmail.com, Tobias Burnus , gcc-patches , Bernhard Reutner-Fischer , fortran@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH,FORTRAN 28/29] Free type-bound procedure structs Message-ID: <20211029184212.744f0050@nbbrfq> In-Reply-To: References: <20180905145732.404-29-rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> <20211029020551.11a62076@nbbrfq> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, KAM_SHORT, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: fortran@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Fortran mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 16:42:20 -0000 On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 07:54:21 -0700 Jerry D wrote: > Looks good and simple. Proceed. Thanks Committed as 7883a7f07c1ad9c8aaccc5bbd96e0ae1fa230c89 Thanks! Maybe somebody could eyeball and ACK "Fix memory leak in finalization wrappers" https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-October/056838.html We were generating (and emitting to modules) finalization wrapper needlessly, i.e. even when they were not called for. This 1) leaked like shown in the initial submission and 2) polluted module files with unwarranted (wrong) mention of finalization wrappers even when compiling without any coarray stuff. E.g. a modified udr10.f90 (from libgomp) has the following diff in the module which illustrates the positive side-effect of the fix: -26 'array' '' '' 25 ((VARIABLE INOUT UNKNOWN-PROC UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 0 0 -ARTIFICIAL DIMENSION CONTIGUOUS DUMMY) () (DERIVED 3 0 0 0 DERIVED ()) 0 -0 () (0 0 ASSUMED_RANK) 0 () () () 0 0) -27 'byte_stride' '' '' 25 ((VARIABLE UNKNOWN-INTENT UNKNOWN-PROC UNKNOWN -UNKNOWN 0 0 ARTIFICIAL VALUE DUMMY) () (INTEGER 8 0 0 0 INTEGER ()) 0 0 -() () 0 () () () 0 0) -28 'fini_coarray' '' '' 25 ((VARIABLE UNKNOWN-INTENT UNKNOWN-PROC -UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 0 0 ARTIFICIAL VALUE DUMMY) () (LOGICAL 1 0 0 0 LOGICAL -()) 0 0 () () 0 () () () 0 0) thanks,