------- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-03-28 14:45 ------- Subject: Re: Weird temporary array allocation
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > ------- Comment #15 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-28 14:10 > ------- > Actually, I am wondering whether one needs to do > D.1620_135 = __builtin_malloc (1); > for temporary arrays. For user-accessible ALLOCATABLE arrays one does - > because > ALLOCATED(array) needs also to be .TRUE. for zero-sized arrays, but for > temporary arrays one does not. For those one could just do > D.1620_135 = 0B > Will the middle-end optimize __builtin_free(NULL) away? Not yet, but that's easy to implement. Note that I will be looking in detail into malloc/free optimizations, including moving allocation out of loops. So there's no need to rush anything and it can wait for 4.6. Richard. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42958
