On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hi Jakub,
This checkin doesn't match its ChangeLog entry and it doesn't fix
FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++200x/stdc++.cc (test for excess errors)
FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++200x/stdc++_multiple_inclusion.cc (test for
excess errors)
Is this an oversight?
>
> --- 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
--
H.J.
