From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28904 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2011 18:21:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 28836 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2011 18:21:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_SUB_GETRID,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx.meyering.net (HELO mx.meyering.net) (82.230.74.64) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:21:23 +0000 Received: by rho.meyering.net (Acme Bit-Twister, from userid 1000) id EE786600B4; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 19:21:20 +0100 (CET) From: Jim Meyering To: Janne Blomqvist Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, java-patches@gcc.gnu.org, fortran@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH gcc/fortran] get rid of gfc_free In-Reply-To: (Janne Blomqvist's message of "Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:18:22 +0200") References: <87zkp9zmq0.fsf@rho.meyering.net> <877hc9r8w6.fsf_-_@rho.meyering.net> <877hc9pkhp.fsf_-_@rho.meyering.net> <87zkow3dmp.fsf_-_@rho.meyering.net> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:21:00 -0000 Message-ID: <87mxkw1bz3.fsf@rho.meyering.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mailing-List: contact java-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-q1/txt/msg00090.txt.bz2 Janne Blomqvist wrote: ... >> Hi Janne, >> >> These requested changes are in addition to (and independent of) >> the changes that I've already posted here. > > Yes, it was perhaps a bit unreasonable to ask you to fix this. OTOH > with your changes gfc_free() was just a wrapper around free() and > should thus be removed as unnecessary. Also, I believe this "proper" > fix is more in the spirit of the request by Tobias and the message he > linked to discussing the removal of gfc_free(). > >>=A0The first cset below >> does your #2 and #3, and the second does #1. =A0I separate them for >> review because #1 is completely mechanical, while the others >> are manual. =A0You may prefer to combine them before pushing, for >> bisection. =A0Let me know if you'd prefer I submit in that form. > > All 3 changesets are ok for 4.7. > > I think it's fine to commit them separately if you prefer. If so, > preferably in the order #3, #1, #2 in order to keep every revision > buildable. > > Thanks for working on this! Just so we're clear... Currently while I do have a sourceware account, I'm not in the gcc group, so don't have commit access, sourceware$ id -a|grep gcc [Exit 1] so someone else would have to commit my changes. Or add me to the "gcc" group and I will do it. Another recently-approved change may be in limbo for this reason: avoid memory overrun in a test leading to potential double-free * testsuite/test-expandargv.c (writeout_test): Fix off-by-one error: i.e., do copy the trailing NUL byte.