On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:51:55AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> It's only safe to free the targs if they weren't used to instantiate
> any templates, so I lean toward option #1. Did you test this with
> strict gc?
Ok, after IRC discussion and another bootstrap/regtest I've installed
this variant instead:
2013-12-12 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
PR c++/58627
* call.c (add_template_candidate_real): Don't call ggc_free on targs.
--- gcc/cp/class.c.jj 2013-11-28 08:18:58.000000000 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/class.c 2013-12-11 20:57:40.155059669 +0100
@@ -7475,8 +7475,6 @@ resolve_address_of_overloaded_function (
/* See if there's a match. */
if (same_type_p (target_fn_type, static_fn_type (instantiation)))
matches = tree_cons (instantiation, fn, matches);
-
- ggc_free (targs);
}
/* Now, remove all but the most specialized of the matches. */
Jakub
