From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-416355-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 21195 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2013 16:33:10 -0000
Received: (qmail 20832 invoked by uid 48); 26 Feb 2013 16:32:21 -0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/56461] [4.8 Regression] GCC is leaking lots of memory
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:33:00 -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:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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-56461-4-Bzk4VOLzOG@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-56461-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-56461-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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: 2013-02/txt/msg02520.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56461

--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-26 16:32:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 29544
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29544
gcc48-pr56461-2.patch

Another leak fix, this time in lra.

==31825== 161,960 bytes in 32 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 2,722
of 2,737
==31825==    at 0x4A0881C: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:270)
==31825==    by 0x13150A7: xmalloc (xmalloc.c:147)
==31825==    by 0xB09EF3: lra_spill() (lra-spills.c:531)
==31825==    by 0xAEC826: lra(_IO_FILE*) (lra.c:2325)
==31825==    by 0xAA1C98: do_reload() (ira.c:4619)
==31825==    by 0xAA1E9C: rest_of_handle_reload() (ira.c:4731)
==31825==    by 0xB5BB85: execute_one_pass(opt_pass*) (passes.c:2330)
==31825==    by 0xB5BD79: execute_pass_list(opt_pass*) (passes.c:2378)
==31825==    by 0xB5BDAA: execute_pass_list(opt_pass*) (passes.c:2379)
==31825==    by 0x887CC5: expand_function(cgraph_node*) (cgraphunit.c:1640)
==31825==    by 0x888180: expand_all_functions() (cgraphunit.c:1744)
==31825==    by 0x888C0A: compile() (cgraphunit.c:2042)


I see another issue in LRA, but don't have a fix for it yet:
==31825== 1,424 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 2,273 of
2,737
==31825==    at 0x4A0881C: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:270)
==31825==    by 0x131514F: xrealloc (xmalloc.c:177)
==31825==    by 0x5FA554: void va_heap::reserve<int>(vec<int, va_heap,
vl_embed>*&, unsigned int, bool) (vec.h:300)
==31825==    by 0x5FA205: vec<int, va_heap, vl_ptr>::reserve(unsigned int,
bool) (vec.h:1468)
==31825==    by 0x84B952: vec<int, va_heap, vl_ptr>::reserve_exact(unsigned
int) (vec.h:1482)
==31825==    by 0x84B904: vec<int, va_heap, vl_ptr>::create(unsigned int)
(vec.h:1497)
==31825==    by 0xB082A9: lra_create_live_ranges(bool) (lra-lives.c:976)
==31825==    by 0xAEC77E: lra(_IO_FILE*) (lra.c:2295)
==31825==    by 0xAA1C98: do_reload() (ira.c:4619)
==31825==    by 0xAA1E9C: rest_of_handle_reload() (ira.c:4731)
==31825==    by 0xB5BB85: execute_one_pass(opt_pass*) (passes.c:2330)
==31825==    by 0xB5BD79: execute_pass_list(opt_pass*) (passes.c:2378)

I wonder if we shouldn't call
  if (live_p)
    lra_clear_live_ranges ();
before the lra_create_live_ranges (true); call in lra.c (lra), and also call it
when setting live_p to false.  Vlad?