Hi!
I'm working on plugging a memory leak in an entirely different
compartment of GCC, but also ran into this issue:
On 2021-02-12T08:35:52+0100, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 7:35 PM Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/11/21 12:59 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 6:16 PM Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> [...] Valgrind shows more leaks in this code that
>> >> I'm not sure what to do about:
>> >>
>> >> 1) A tree built by build_type_attribute_qual_variant() called from
>> >> attr_access::array_as_string() to build a temporary type only
>> >> for the purposes of formatting it.
>> >>
>> >> 2) A tree (an attribute list) built by tree_cons() called from
>> >> build_attr_access_from_parms() that's used only for the duration
>> >> of the caller.
>> >>
>> >> Do these temporary trees need to be released somehow or are the leaks
>> >> expected?
>> >
>> > You should configure GCC with --enable-valgrind-annotations to make
>> > it aware of our GC.
>>
>> I did configure with that option:
>>
>> $ /src/gcc/master/configure --enable-checking=yes
>> --enable-languages=all,jit,lto --enable-host-shared
>> --enable-valgrind-annotations
>> $ /build/gcc-master/gcc/xgcc -B /build/gcc-master/gcc -S -Wall
>> /src/gcc/master/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/Wvla-parameter.c -wrapper
>> valgrind,--leak-check=full,--show-leak-kinds=all,--track-origins=yes,--log-file=valgrind-out.txt
>>
>> Do you not see the same leaks?
I do; also stuff like:
56 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 152 of 875
at 0x483DD99: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:762)
by 0x1753240: xcalloc (xmalloc.c:162)
by 0x669C83: ggc_internal_alloc(unsigned long, void (*)(void*), unsigned
long, unsigned long) (ggc-page.c:918)
by 0x89E07D: ggc_internal_cleared_alloc(unsigned long, void (*)(void*),
unsigned long, unsigned long) (ggc-common.c:117)
by 0xF65D0D: make_node(tree_code) (ggc.h:143)
by 0xF6632B: build_decl(unsigned int, tree_code, tree_node*, tree_node*)
(tree.c:5264)
by 0xA28ADC: build_builtin_function(unsigned int, char const*,
tree_node*, int, built_in_class, char const*, tree_node*) (langhooks.c:681)
by 0xA29FDD: add_builtin_function(char const*, tree_node*, int,
built_in_class, char const*, tree_node*) (langhooks.c:716)
by 0x622BFB: def_builtin_1(built_in_function, char const*,
built_in_class, tree_node*, tree_node*, bool, bool, bool, tree_node*, bool)
[clone .constprop.25] (lto-lang.c:650)
by 0x640709: lto_define_builtins(tree_node*, tree_node*)
(omp-builtins.def:46)
by 0x641EE3: lto_init() (lto-lang.c:1339)
by 0x61E26A: toplev::main(int, char**) (toplev.c:1921)
... and many, many more.
> Err, well. --show-leak-kinds=all is probably the cause.
Before finding this email, I too had convinced myself that everying that
came by 'ggc_*' I may ignore, because:
> We
> definitely do not force-release
> all reachable GC allocated memory at program end.
... of this: these blocks simply had not been GCed at program end.
It's however a bit tedious to filter, in my case, 11864 lines of Valgrind
output.
> Not sure if
> valgrind annotations can
> make that obvious to valgrind.
Or, if that's not feasible (I don't know much about Valgrind...), then
instead would it help to force a final GC at program end if we're running
in "valgrind mode"? If that's a plausible thing to do, would guarding
that by GCC having been configured with '--enable-valgrind-annotations'
be OK, or do we need a '--param', or something else?
> I'm just using --leak-check=full and
> thus look for
> unreleased and no longer reachable memory.
ACK, in my case, that only shows seven errors (not related to my stuff).
Grüße
Thomas
-----------------
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634
München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas
Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht
München, HRB 106955
