From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 108270 invoked by alias); 17 Oct 2015 20:51:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 108249 invoked by uid 89); 17 Oct 2015 20:51:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: troutmask.apl.washington.edu Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (HELO troutmask.apl.washington.edu) (128.95.76.21) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 20:51:37 +0000 Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id t9HKpZU3086638 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 17 Oct 2015 13:51:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from sgk@localhost) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id t9HKpXc6086637; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 13:51:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 06:22:00 -0000 From: Steve Kargl To: Paul Richard Thomas Cc: "fortran@gcc.gnu.org" , gcc-patches , Dominique Dhumieres Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PR67177, 67977 and memory leaks in move_alloc Message-ID: <20151017205133.GA86576@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg01674.txt.bz2 On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 09:49:45PM +0200, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > > I was moved by a report on clf of memory leaks in move_alloc to > investigate the cause. This turned out to be trivial but led to the > above PRs, which themselves were trivial. The result is the attached > patch. I am aware that I have not investigated the further > ramifications that I can imagine are there. Rather, I thought just to > fix the reported problems. > > It should be noted that there is no PR directly associated with the > memory leaks. Since the standard does not require this, I did not > think that it was worthwhile to raise a PR and then close it! > > Bootstraps and regtests on FC21/x86_64 - OK for trunk? ... and 5.2 > after a decent interval? OK. -- steve