On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 10:27 PM Tom Tromey wrote:
>
> Philippe Waroquiers noticed a memory leak in gdb, which he tracked
> down to a bug in splay-tree. splay_tree_remove does not call the
> `delete_key' function when it removes the old node; but it should.
>
> I looked at every splay tree in GCC and there is only one that passes
> a non-NULL delete function -- the one in lto.c. That file does not
> call splay_tree_remove. So, I think this is safe to check in.
>
> I re-ran the LTO tests to double check.
OK
> libiberty/
> * splay-tree.c (splay_tree_remove): Delete the key if necessary.
> ---
> libiberty/ChangeLog| 4
> libiberty/splay-tree.c | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/libiberty/ChangeLog b/libiberty/ChangeLog
> index bcc0227bdd8..1eb25f928f2 100644
> --- a/libiberty/ChangeLog
> +++ b/libiberty/ChangeLog
> @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
> +2019-01-18 Tom Tromey
> +
> + * splay-tree.c (splay_tree_remove): Delete the key if necessary.
> +
> 2019-01-14 Tom Honermann
>
> * cp-demangle.c (cplus_demangle_builtin_types)
> diff --git a/libiberty/splay-tree.c b/libiberty/splay-tree.c
> index 920e68db2cb..21d23c38dfc 100644
> --- a/libiberty/splay-tree.c
> +++ b/libiberty/splay-tree.c
> @@ -425,6 +425,8 @@ splay_tree_remove (splay_tree sp, splay_tree_key key)
>right = sp->root->right;
>
>/* Delete the root node itself. */
> + if (sp->delete_key)
> + (*sp->delete_key) (sp->root->key);
>if (sp->delete_value)
> (*sp->delete_value) (sp->root->value);
>(*sp->deallocate) (sp->root, sp->allocate_data);
> --
> 2.17.2
>
