[Bug fortran/53521] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] Zero-byte "memory leak" with zero-sized array constructor (valgrind warning)

2012-05-30 Thread Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53521 --- Comment #6 from Joost VandeVondele 2012-05-30 14:37:09 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > You say not doing free (0) leaks memory? What OS is this on? I'm observing on a Linux box that : MODULE TEST IMPLICIT NONE CONTAINS SUBROUTINE T(

[Bug fortran/53521] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] Zero-byte "memory leak" with zero-sized array constructor (valgrind warning)

2012-05-30 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53521 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 f

[Bug fortran/53521] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] Zero-byte "memory leak" with zero-sized array constructor (valgrind warning)

2012-05-30 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53521 --- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2012-05-30 12:46:53 UTC --- You say not doing free (0) leaks memory? What OS is this on? Note that we fold such calls away: case BUILT_IN_FREE: if (integer_zerop (arg0)) return build_empty

[Bug fortran/53521] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] Zero-byte "memory leak" with zero-sized array constructor (valgrind warning)

2012-05-30 Thread Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53521 --- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele 2012-05-30 12:31:18 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > Well, I think this is a valgrind issue and not a real "leak". Whether you > want to "optimize" code for the non-NULL case by omitting the NULL check is