From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 2CEB73858400; Sun, 11 Sep 2022 20:11:40 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2CEB73858400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1662927100;
	bh=Ao7csXmm015ahXB+hmnizSOQPQRZVcqiZLKDQZaMWvs=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=gs4M5IUBhVGIOJQ/uOGOeC0e/68FTpKTsVPrgBccLUBowoZT+iByU2fURkJqUI8Xm
	 MUhTAVVPgW+1/EJO6XrF39ty0Yx9FvHo805FoD/P5LLlgrS6Esyfj7HG3jFhtsmWo5
	 OKcYeEzVaGBsz6H0sd7q/ZyW3D7MZkJlWBtkVK98=
From: "mikael at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/106750] Memory leak calling array slice of derived type
 containing `allocatable` entries
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2022 20:11:40 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 9.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-106750-4-WcYGyO9CnW@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106750-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106750-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106750

Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mikael at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #4 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Regarding the other "leak" from the original test:

(In reply to federico from comment #0)
>=20
> program test
  (...)
>    type(t), allocatable :: ts(:)
  (...)
>    ! [leak #2] happens if ts is not deallocated. Shouldn't a program work
> like a
>    ! subroutine, and deallocate everything that's going out of scope?
>    deallocate(ts)
>=20
> end program test
>=20

Not automatically deallocating is the correct behavior here, I think:

> A variable, (...) declared in the scoping unit of a main program, module,=
 or
> submodule implicitly has the SAVE attribute
   =3D> TS has the save attribute.

> The SAVE attribute specifies that a local variable of a program unit or=20
> subprogram retains its association status, allocation status, definition=
=20
> status, and value after execution of a RETURN or END statement (...).
   =3D> TS is not deallocated at the end of the program

> When the execution of a procedure is terminated by execution of a RETURN =
or=20
> END statement, an unsaved allocatable local variable of the procedure ret=
ains
> its allocation and definition status if it is a function result or a
> subobject thereof; otherwise, if it is allocated it will be deallocated.
   =3D> this doesn=E2=80=99t apply as TS has the save attribute.=