https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71412
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to relliott from comment #9) > Created attachment 38654 [details] > gfortran_pointer_bug.tgz > > Hello, > > I still believe there is a bug associated with the iso_c_bindings and > c_loc() support. In the attached, I've created an example program that > shows that ALLOCATABLE local variables are deallocated at the end of > a routine (noleak), but pointer variables are not (leak). > > Then, I've created a program without using iso_c_bindings that gives > the same result for -O0 and -O3 (pointer_fortran) and a program that > uses iso_c_bindings to do the same thing that gives different results > for -O0 and -O3 (pointer_cstyle). > > Use the 'runme.sh' script to illustrate the following behavior: > I don't do bash, so runme.sh is useless. I do note that at least some of your codes leak memory, but this is your fault not gfortran's fault. From F2003: If an unsaved allocatable object is a local variable of a module, and it is allocated when execution of a RETURN or END statement results in no active scoping unit having access to the module, it is processor-dependent whether the object retains its allocation status or is deallocated. subroutine store(a) use pointerstore, only : p implicit none real, pointer, intent(in) :: a if (associated(p)) deallocate(p) p => a return end subroutine store gcc bugzilla is a not Fortran teaching forum. Please take your examples to comp.lang.fortran. There are a number of experts (include current and former members of the Fortran standardization committee) that answer questions there. In fact, the former technical editor of both Fortran 95 and 2003 is quite active there. He often warns people to avoid using pointers. If you can get any of those experts to agree with your assertion that a bug exists, then be all means come back and report a simple self-contained example.
