red
> > > I'd send the actual fix for review now. Would this be OK for 13.1 or
> > > shall it wait until 13.2?
>
> Jakub's call, but this regression seems like a blocker to me.
Not doing ggc_free shouldn't really break stuff except increase memory
consump
be to push this with a reduced testcase, but I figured
I'd send the actual fix for review now. Would this be OK for 13.1 or
shall it wait until 13.2?
Jakub's call, but this regression seems like a blocker to me.
Now with a reduced testcase:
-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] c++: bad ggc_f
o push this with a reduced testcase, but I figured
> I'd send the actual fix for review now. Would this be OK for 13.1 or
> shall it wait until 13.2?
Now with a reduced testcase:
-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] c++: bad ggc_free in try_class_unification [PR109556]
Aside from correcting h
Aside from correcting how try_class_unification copies multi-dimensional
'targs', r13-377-g3e948d645bc908 also made it ggc_free this copy as an
optimization. But this is potentially wrong since the call to unify
within might've captured the args in persistent memory such as the
satisfaction cache
