From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-450489-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 2726 invoked by alias); 4 May 2014 10:06:43 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 2658 invoked by uid 48); 4 May 2014 10:06:39 -0000
From: "dominiq at lps dot ens.fr" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/41936] Memory leakage with allocatables and user-defined operators
Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 10:06:00 -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: 4.5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: patch, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: pault at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-41936-4-FOiJuvdWKc@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-41936-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-41936-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00181.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41936

--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
Is the following patch OK?

--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c    2014-04-30 21:41:33.000000000 +0200
+++ gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c    2014-05-04 00:42:50.000000000 +0200
@@ -6504,6 +6504,20 @@ gfc_conv_expr_reference (gfc_se * se, gf

   /* Take the address of that value.  */
   se->expr = gfc_build_addr_expr (NULL_TREE, var);
+  if (expr->ts.type == BT_DERIVED && expr->rank
+      && !gfc_is_finalizable (expr->ts.u.derived, NULL)
+      && expr->ts.u.derived->attr.alloc_comp
+      && expr->expr_type != EXPR_VARIABLE)
+    {
+      tree tmp;
+
+      tmp = build_fold_indirect_ref_loc (input_location, se->expr);
+      tmp = gfc_deallocate_alloc_comp (expr->ts.u.derived, tmp, expr->rank);
+      
+      /* The components shall be deallocated before
+         their containing entity.  */
+      gfc_prepend_expr_to_block (&se->post, tmp);
+    }
 }


It fixes the memory leaks for the test in comment 0 and for
gfortran.dg/class_array_15.f03, but not pr55603 nor pr60913.

Is the following change for gfortran.dg/class_array_15.f03

--- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_array_15.f03    2013-01-06
22:34:50.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/class_array_15.f03    2014-05-04
10:24:06.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
 ! { dg-do run }
+! { dg-options "-fdump-tree-original" }
 !
 ! Tests the fixes for three bugs with the same underlying cause.  All are
regressions
 ! that come about because class array elements end up with a different tree
type
@@ -114,3 +115,5 @@ subroutine pr54992  ! This test remains 
   bh => bhGet(b,instance=2)
   if (loc (b) .ne. loc(bh%hostNode)) call abort
 end
+! { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "builtin_free" 12 "original" } }
+! { dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "original" } }

enough (there are only 11 builtin_free without the patch)? or should I add the
test in comment 0 (15 builtin_free with the patch, 12 without)?