[Bug fortran/97345] FE passes do_subscript leaks gmp memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97345 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|--- |13.0 --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Should be fixed for gcc-13. Closing. Thanks for the report!
[Bug fortran/97345] FE passes do_subscript leaks gmp memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97345 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 09:50:08PM +, cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- > The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : > > https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fec9fc1a17ec44461cee841513f1b6b8ad680fe4 > > commit r13-5095-gfec9fc1a17ec44461cee841513f1b6b8ad680fe4 > Author: Harald Anlauf > Date: Tue Jan 10 22:41:17 2023 +0100 > > Fortran: frontend passes do_subscript leaks gmp memory [PR97345] > > gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: > > PR fortran/97345 > * frontend-passes.cc (do_subscript): Clear used gmp variables. > Thanks for taking care of this one. Sorry I got sidetracked.
[Bug fortran/97345] FE passes do_subscript leaks gmp memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97345 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fec9fc1a17ec44461cee841513f1b6b8ad680fe4 commit r13-5095-gfec9fc1a17ec44461cee841513f1b6b8ad680fe4 Author: Harald Anlauf Date: Tue Jan 10 22:41:17 2023 +0100 Fortran: frontend passes do_subscript leaks gmp memory [PR97345] gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: PR fortran/97345 * frontend-passes.cc (do_subscript): Clear used gmp variables.
[Bug fortran/97345] FE passes do_subscript leaks gmp memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97345 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to kargl from comment #3) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #2) > > + > > + mpz_clear (do_start); > > + mpz_clear (do_end); > > + mpz_clear (do_step); > > } > > Harald, when I was looking at this PR, I came to the conclusion that only > do_step needs to be cleared. I think the do_start and do_end get hooked > into an iterator, but don't remember the details. I got sidetracked on the > the broken valgrind utilities I have on FreeBSD. The above is almost correct; the clearing of do_start and do_end does need to be protected by if (have_do_...). Otherwise regtesting goes sideways... :-O > I don't think a test case is needed if you use valgrind to verify that the > memory leaks are gone. Sure, there are enough do-loop tests already present > in the testsuite that will fail if the patch goes left. Indeed!
[Bug fortran/97345] FE passes do_subscript leaks gmp memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97345 --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #2) > + > + mpz_clear (do_start); > + mpz_clear (do_end); > + mpz_clear (do_step); > } Harald, when I was looking at this PR, I came to the conclusion that only do_step needs to be cleared. I think the do_start and do_end get hooked into an iterator, but don't remember the details. I got sidetracked on the the broken valgrind utilities I have on FreeBSD. I don't think a test case is needed if you use valgrind to verify that the memory leaks are gone. Sure, there are enough do-loop tests already present in the testsuite that will fail if the patch goes left.
[Bug fortran/97345] FE passes do_subscript leaks gmp memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97345
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Visual inspection of function do_subscript() suggests the following patch:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/frontend-passes.cc b/gcc/fortran/frontend-passes.cc
index 612c12d233d..6731de64539 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/frontend-passes.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/frontend-passes.cc
@@ -2892,7 +2892,12 @@ do_subscript (gfc_expr **e)
cmp = mpz_cmp (do_end, do_start);
if ((sgn > 0 && cmp < 0) || (sgn < 0 && cmp > 0))
- break;
+ {
+ mpz_clear (do_start);
+ mpz_clear (do_end);
+ mpz_clear (do_step);
+ break;
+ }
}
/* May have to correct the end value if the step does not equal
@@ -2965,6 +2970,10 @@ do_subscript (gfc_expr **e)
mpz_clear (val);
}
}
+
+ mpz_clear (do_start);
+ mpz_clear (do_end);
+ mpz_clear (do_step);
}
}
}
Can this be committed without a testcase after regtesting?
Or how should a testcase look like?
[Bug fortran/97345] FE passes do_subscript leaks gmp memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97345 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #0) > ==15138== 8 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 5 of 742 > ==15138==at 0x4C2E2DF: malloc (in > /usr/lib64/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so) > ==15138==by 0x568C698: __gmp_default_allocate (in > /usr/lib64/libgmp.so.10.3.2) > ==15138==by 0x569CA22: __gmpz_init_set (in /usr/lib64/libgmp.so.10.3.2) > ==15138==by 0xC04033: do_subscript(gfc_expr**) (frontend-passes.c:2861) > ==15138==by 0xC03C58: do_function(gfc_expr**, int*, void*) > (frontend-passes.c:2699) > ==15138==by 0xC0A1CD: gfc_expr_walker(gfc_expr**, int (*)(gfc_expr**, > int*, void*), void*) (frontend-passes.c:5189) > > the code is doing mpz_init_set (...) but no where freeing the memory > associated with mpz_t do_start, do_step, do_end While I can find reporting of the above, I see % valgrind -s ~/work/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-freebsd14.0/13.0.0/f951 a.f90 ... ==46939== 183 errors in context 102 of 102: ==46939== Mismatched free() / delete / delete [] ==46939==at 0x484F55C: operator delete[](void*) (in /usr/local/libexec/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-freebsd.so) ==46939==by 0xADF6E2: (anonymous namespace)::dom_info::~dom_info() (dominance.cc:284) ==46939==by 0xAE127C: verify_dominators(cdi_direction) (dominance.cc:1185) ==46939==by 0xA76D5C: verify_loop_structure() (cfgloop.cc:1419) ==46939==by 0xD85B64: checking_verify_loop_structure (cfgloop.h:646) ==46939==by 0xD85B64: loop_optimizer_init(unsigned int) (loop-init.cc:130) ==46939==by 0xF9C25E: execute_build_cfg (tree-cfg.cc:382) ==46939==by 0xF9C25E: (anonymous namespace)::pass_build_cfg::execute(function*) (tree-cfg.cc:412) ==46939==by 0xE6C281: execute_one_pass(opt_pass*) (passes.cc:2644) ==46939==by 0xE6CBA7: execute_pass_list_1(opt_pass*) (passes.cc:2753) ==46939==by 0xE6CBF0: execute_pass_list(function*, opt_pass*) (passes.cc:2764) ==46939==by 0xAA9863: cgraph_node::analyze() (cgraphunit.cc:686) ==46939==by 0xAAC597: analyze_functions(bool) (cgraphunit.cc:1240) ==46939==by 0xAAD2D5: symbol_table::finalize_compilation_unit() (cgraphunit.cc:2514) ==46939== Address 0x5d4e6a0 is 0 bytes inside a block of size 56 alloc'd ==46939==at 0x484D064: operator new(unsigned long) (in /usr/local/libexec/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-freebsd.so) ==46939==by 0xADFBF9: new_zero_array (dominance.cc:153) ==46939==by 0xADFBF9: (anonymous namespace)::dom_info::dom_init() (dominance.cc:166) ==46939==by 0xADFD18: (anonymous namespace)::dom_info::dom_info(function*, cdi_direction) (dominance.cc:195) ==46939==by 0xAE11AC: verify_dominators(cdi_direction) (dominance.cc:1159) ==46939==by 0xA76D5C: verify_loop_structure() (cfgloop.cc:1419) ==46939==by 0xD85B64: checking_verify_loop_structure (cfgloop.h:646) ==46939==by 0xD85B64: loop_optimizer_init(unsigned int) (loop-init.cc:130) ==46939==by 0xF9C25E: execute_build_cfg (tree-cfg.cc:382) ==46939==by 0xF9C25E: (anonymous namespace)::pass_build_cfg::execute(function*) (tree-cfg.cc:412) ==46939==by 0xE6C281: execute_one_pass(opt_pass*) (passes.cc:2644) ==46939==by 0xE6CBA7: execute_pass_list_1(opt_pass*) (passes.cc:2753) ==46939==by 0xE6CBF0: execute_pass_list(function*, opt_pass*) (passes.cc:2764) ==46939==by 0xAA9863: cgraph_node::analyze() (cgraphunit.cc:686) ==46939==by 0xAAC597: analyze_functions(bool) (cgraphunit.cc:1240) ==46939== ==46939== ERROR SUMMARY: 2511 errors from 102 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
[Bug fortran/97345] FE passes do_subscript leaks gmp memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97345 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug fortran/97345] FE passes do_subscript leaks gmp memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97345 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed||2021-01-25 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
