On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 09:51:38AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> 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.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> This checkin doesn't match its ChangeLog entry and it doesn't fix
I have fixed up the function name in the ChangeLog entry.
As for the stdc++.cc failure, I've commented in the PR, it is PCH related,
the relation to PR58627 was just a guess from me and proved to be wrong
guess.
> 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)
Jakub
