http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Oct 4 10:06:23 2013
New Revision: 203201
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203201root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-10-04 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
--- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: burnus
Date: Fri Oct 4 10:08:57 2013
New Revision: 203202
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203202root=gccview=rev
Log:
Add missing changelog entry for Rev. 203201:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: burnus
Date: Tue Oct 1 20:52:49 2013
New Revision: 203086
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203086root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-10-01 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
--- Comment #10 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
---
This bug is a bit of showstopper for doing automatic leak testing with
gperftools (essentially all our regtests have a non-zero error code with this
leak being
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
--- Comment #9 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2013-02-07 05:57:43 UTC ---
This
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-02/msg00068.html
seems the same/similar issue. Was there consensus about the patch ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
--- Comment #5 from Matthias Krack matthias.krack at gmail dot com 2012-11-29
10:16:06 UTC ---
Memory leaks are still present for other choices of the string t.
For instance t=. or t=./ is still causing memory leaks for the test case in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
--- Comment #6 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2012-11-29 10:23:13 UTC ---
Is that for the more complete patch posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-11/msg00083.html
BTW, wrong PR number in that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Krack matthias.krack at gmail dot com 2012-11-29
11:12:56 UTC ---
I also checked the more complete patch PR5469, but it shows still the memory
leaks as described in comment 5 for the 4_7-branch. The same is true
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
Matthias Krack matthias.krack at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55469
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26
10:23:54 UTC ---
Didn't help. The following should work. The crucial part is free_line. At a
glance free_saved(dtp) (here and in comment 2) seems also to be sensible,
14 matches
Mail list logo
