From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-393074-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 30353 invoked by alias); 29 May 2012 07:53:55 -0000
Received: (qmail 30339 invoked by uid 22791); 29 May 2012 07:53:53 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 May 2012 07:53:39 +0000
From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/53510] [4.8 Regression] OOM while compile some code
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 08:05:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic, memory-hog
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: manu at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-53510-4-TUZfBCBqTs@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-53510-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-53510-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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
X-SW-Source: 2012-05/txt/msg02692.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D53510

--- Comment #7 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez <manu at gcc dot gnu=
.org> 2012-05-29 07:53:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Created attachment 27515 [details]
> gcc48-pr53510.patch
>=20
> Ugh, that leaks like crazy.  Not only it forgets to free buffers, but also
> doubles the size of the allocation (which is fine) but only adds 2 to the
> expected allocated block length, so it allocates twice as much for every 2
> bytes beyond 200 characters on a line.

You are right. It is very weird what that code is doing. FWIW, I copied the
function from gcov.c:read_line, so I guess that code has the same bug.