[Bug fortran/107560] ICE in gfc_get_derived_type, at fortran/trans-types.cc:2811
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107560 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The BOZ memleak should be fixed with r13-6857-g833233a4aefc99. There is another FE memleak which is the same for z1.f90 and z2.f90: ==16805== 48 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 19 of 674 ==16805==at 0x4C39571: calloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so) ==16805==by 0x2120D94: xcalloc (xmalloc.c:164) ==16805==by 0x9AB967: gfc_match_actual_arglist(int, gfc_actual_arglist**, bool) (primary.cc:1870) ==16805==by 0x9AFEA2: gfc_match_rvalue(gfc_expr**) (primary.cc:3695) ==16805==by 0x95F6A6: match_primary(gfc_expr**) (matchexp.cc:157) ==16805==by 0x95F7C3: match_level_1(gfc_expr**) (matchexp.cc:211) ==16805==by 0x95F885: match_mult_operand(gfc_expr**) (matchexp.cc:267) ==16805==by 0x95FA90: match_add_operand(gfc_expr**) (matchexp.cc:356) ==16805==by 0x95FD50: match_level_2(gfc_expr**) (matchexp.cc:480) ==16805==by 0x95FEE2: match_level_3(gfc_expr**) (matchexp.cc:551) ==16805==by 0x95FFE6: match_level_4(gfc_expr**) (matchexp.cc:599) ==16805==by 0x960279: match_and_operand(gfc_expr**) (matchexp.cc:693)
[Bug fortran/107560] ICE in gfc_get_derived_type, at fortran/trans-types.cc:2811
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107560 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to kargl from comment #2) > Yep. It was missed by the guy that did the BOZ rework. ;-) I think the BOZ rework was a greater step for mankind than the missing fix ... > If it passed regtesting, it's ok to commit. It did. Will commit.
[Bug fortran/107560] ICE in gfc_get_derived_type, at fortran/trans-types.cc:2811
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107560 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed||2023-03-24 CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #1) > This used to fail, but appears to have been fixed in the meantime. > A possible candidate for variant z2.f90 seems the fix for pr103413. > > While looking at valgrind output with current trunk, I see a memleak > for the BOZ case that is obviously plugged by: > > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/expr.cc b/gcc/fortran/expr.cc > index 4662328bf31..7fb33f81788 100644 > --- a/gcc/fortran/expr.cc > +++ b/gcc/fortran/expr.cc > @@ -466,6 +466,10 @@ free_expr0 (gfc_expr *e) > mpc_clear (e->value.complex); > break; > > + case BT_BOZ: > + free (e->boz.str); > + break; > + > default: > break; > } > > This might have been overseen during the BOZ rework. > Regtesting ... Yep. It was missed by the guy that did the BOZ rework. ;-) If it passed regtesting, it's ok to commit.
[Bug fortran/107560] ICE in gfc_get_derived_type, at fortran/trans-types.cc:2811
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107560 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||11.3.1, 12.2.1, 13.0 CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org Known to fail||11.3.0, 12.2.0 --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- This used to fail, but appears to have been fixed in the meantime. A possible candidate for variant z2.f90 seems the fix for pr103413. While looking at valgrind output with current trunk, I see a memleak for the BOZ case that is obviously plugged by: diff --git a/gcc/fortran/expr.cc b/gcc/fortran/expr.cc index 4662328bf31..7fb33f81788 100644 --- a/gcc/fortran/expr.cc +++ b/gcc/fortran/expr.cc @@ -466,6 +466,10 @@ free_expr0 (gfc_expr *e) mpc_clear (e->value.complex); break; + case BT_BOZ: + free (e->boz.str); + break; + default: break; } This might have been overseen during the BOZ rework. Regtesting ...
