https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
zed.three at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zed.three at gmail dot com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #24 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Tue Aug 28 11:35:52 2018
New Revision: 263916
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263916&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-28 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/80477
* trans-expr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.2 |8.3
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.0 |8.2
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #20 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #19)
> And IIRC we even use the finalization
> wrapper for deallocating polymorphic variables in other cases (even if they
> have no actual FINAL procedures).
In fa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #18 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com from comment #16)
> The attached does what you want to the testcase. For CLASS objects, it
> is the data that has to be copied to a variable, that data fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Paul,
(In reply to paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com from comment #16)
> The attached does what you want to the testcase. For CLASS objects, it
> is the data that has to be copied to a variable, th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #16 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Janus,
The attached does what you want to the testcase. For CLASS objects, it
is the data that has to be copied to a variable, that data freed and
the _data field pointed to the va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #15 from Stefano Zaghi ---
Dear all,
I add that the workaround (inserting an allocatable inside the type being a
result of polymorphic function) if used into a real code
(https://github.com/szaghi/FORESEER) does not solve the memory
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com from comment #11)
> I'll take a look tonight. I believe, without the source in front of me, that
>
> s/gfc_add_expr_to_block (&post, gfc_call_free
> (tmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #13 from Stefano Zaghi ---
Dear all,
I have done further test about Vipul's workaround, you can find my complete
report here
https://github.com/szaghi/leaks_hunter#results
Essentially, my current conclusion is that the workaround d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #12 from Stefano Zaghi ---
Created attachment 41267
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41267&action=edit
simple inheritance leaker
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #11 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Hi Janus,
I'll take a look tonight. I believe, without the source in front of me, that
s/gfc_add_expr_to_block (&post, gfc_call_free
(tmp));/gfc_add_expr_to_block (&se->post, gfc_cal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #10 from Stefano Zaghi ---
Dear all,
here https://github.com/szaghi/leaks_hunter you can find my report. Into the
report I shown all the test I have done, I provide the sources and the scripts
I used to generate them.
As FortranFan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #8 from Stefano Zaghi ---
Dear Janus,
> No offense taken. Asking questions is not a crime ;)
Good, thank you for the clarification.
> I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there simply is no roadmap and I'm not able
> to provide one.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Stefano Zaghi from comment #6)
> As I tried to clarify to Steve, mine was absolutely not a polemic question:
No offense taken. Asking questions is not a crime ;)
> What I meant was "
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #6 from Stefano Zaghi ---
Dear Janus,
thank you very much for your help, it is really appreciated.
> Note that most gfortran developers actually sacrifice their spare time to
> contribute, without receiving any kind of financial r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Stefano Zaghi from comment #2)
> I read that the other bug report is dated 2014: can I conclude that such a
> bug will need a long time to be fixed?
Not necessarily. It just takes so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #3)
> Confirmed. Here is the most reduced test case I could construct from your
> original example:
-fdump-tree-original shows the following dump for this case:
po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80477
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|
25 matches
Mail list logo
