On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 06:21:17PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > >the > >only other user after all calls free_node in a loop, so it is highly > >unlikely it would do anything there. > > > >If you mean the INTEGER_TYPE handling, then yes, I guess it could be > >done in free_node too and can move it there. If it was without > >the && TREE_TYPE (TYPE_M*_VALUE (type)) == type extra checks, then it > >is certainly unsafe and breaks bootstrap even, e.g. build_range_type > >and other spots happily create INTEGER_TYPEs with min/max value that > >have some other type. But when the type of the INTEGER_CSTs is the > >type we are ggc_freeing, anything that would refer to those constants > >afterwards would be necessarily broken (as their TREE_TYPE would be > >ggc_freed, possibly reused for something completely unrelated). > >Thus I think it should be safe even in the LTO case and thus doable > >in free_node. > > OK. OTOH LTO frees the whole SCC and thus doesn't expect any pointed to stuff > to be freed. Not sure if we allow double ggc_free of stuff.
We don't, that crashes miserably. Jakub