https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69080
--- Comment #16 from Mueller ---
I stumbled upon this problem when creating an object-oriented string class if I
remember correctly. Some procedure would allocate a string and return it (like
dummy_create_allocatable in the test prog). The callin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69080
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69080
--- Comment #14 from Mueller ---
I'd really like to know why this report has been closed although there may be a
problem with deallocation. I think the rephrasing of Mikael pinpointed what I
meant.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69080
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69080
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|kargl at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #11 from k
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69080
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69080
--- Comment #9 from Mueller ---
(In reply to Mueller from comment #8)
> I think, in theory, the compiler could detect something like
>
> call some_subroutine(function_returning_allocatable())
>
> to be a potential case for automatic deallocatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69080
--- Comment #8 from Mueller ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #6)
> > I know that allocatables that are declared in the program itself aren't
> > deallocated automatically because of the implicit save attribute.
> > But my think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69080
--- Comment #7 from sv.muel...@tu-braunschweig.de ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #5)
> When the execution of a procedure is terminated by execution of a
> RETURN or END statement, an allocatable variable that is a named
> local variable of th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69080
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> However, I don't think this is a solution. If you, for example, think
> of a string class as the derived type instead of "dummy", there could
> be a function returning an allocatable string_class der
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69080
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69080
--- Comment #4 from sv.muel...@tu-braunschweig.de ---
Addendum to my last post: I refered to scalar allocatables, not arrays
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69080
--- Comment #3 from sv.muel...@tu-braunschweig.de ---
Thanks for testing this out!
Indeed there aren't any leaks with your changes. Actually, leaving the module
save statement uncommented produces the same positive result for me.
However, I don'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69080
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
The leak seems gone with
module dummy_module
implicit none
! save
type, public :: dummy_class
contains
procedure, public :: trigger => dummy_trigger
end type
contains
function dummy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69080
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
15 matches
Mail list logo
