https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79099
Bug ID: 79099
Summary: Memory leak in cplus-dem.c:2232
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: demangler
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ppluzhnikov at google dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Discovered with LLVM libFuzzer (http://llvm.org/docs/LibFuzzer.html).
Using current binutils trunk (libiberty is identical to r244484):
valgrind --leak-check=full build/binutils/cxxfilt
__ELztype_31__tp__H1f_H1f0U_F0U_Fv__F__ELztype_31__tp__H1f0U_FS
(signed) __ELztype_31__tp__H1f_H1f0U_F0U_Fv__F__ELztype_31__tp<0>(void)
==24094== HEAP SUMMARY:
==24094== in use at exit: 9 bytes in 2 blocks
==24094== total heap usage: 33 allocs, 31 frees, 888 bytes allocated
==24094==
==24094== 9 (8 direct, 1 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in
loss record 2 of 2
==24094== at 0x40307C4: malloc
(valgrind/coregrind/m_replacemalloc/vg_replace_malloc.c:270)
==24094== by 0x7D1157: xmalloc
(/build/libiberty/../../libiberty/xmalloc.c:147)
==24094== by 0x7BD245: demangle_template
(/build/libiberty/../../libiberty/cplus-dem.c:2232)
==24094== by 0x7C05E5: demangle_signature
(/build/libiberty/../../libiberty/cplus-dem.c:1695)
==24094== by 0x7C0994: iterate_demangle_function
(/build/libiberty/../../libiberty/cplus-dem.c:2747)
==24094== by 0x7C1598: internal_cplus_demangle
(/build/libiberty/../../libiberty/cplus-dem.c:2975)
==24094== by 0x7BC491: cplus_demangle
(/build/libiberty/../../libiberty/cplus-dem.c:922)
==24094== by 0x405643: demangle_it
(/build/binutils/../../binutils/cxxfilt.c:62)
==24094== by 0x40525B: main (/build/binutils/../../binutils/cxxfilt.c:227)
==24094==
==24094== LEAK SUMMARY:
==24094== definitely lost: 8 bytes in 1 blocks
==24094== indirectly lost: 1 bytes in 1 blocks
==24094== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==24094== still reachable: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==24094== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
The same leak was definitely present as early as 2016/10/09.
The version of binutils imported from head on 2016/06/09 does not appear to
have this leak.
