[Bug fortran/66079] [6 Regression] memory leak with source allocation in internal subprogram

["pault at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66079

Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2015-05-16
                 CC|                            |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Hi Damian,

The reason for this memory leak is rather obvious:

newrealvec ()
{
  struct subdata * d;

  try
    {
      d = 0B;
      {
        struct subdata D.3386;
        struct subdata D.3385;
        struct subdata subdata.0;

        subdata.0.b = (integer(kind=4) *) __builtin_malloc (4);
        *subdata.0.b = 0;
        D.3385 = subdata.0;
        D.3386 = D.3385;
        if (d != 0B)
          {
            _gfortran_runtime_error_at (&"At line 10 of file
pr66079.f90"[1]{lb: 1 sz: 1}, &"Attempting to allocate already allocated
variable \'%s\'"[1]{lb: 1 sz: 1}, &"d"[1]{lb: 1 sz: 1});
          }
        else
          {
            d = (struct subdata *) __builtin_malloc (8);
            if (d == 0B)
              {
                _gfortran_os_error (&"Allocation would exceed memory
limit"[1]{lb: 1 sz: 1});
              }
          }
        d->b = 0B;
        {
          struct subdata subdata.1;

          subdata.1.b = (integer(kind=4) *) __builtin_malloc (4);
          *subdata.1.b = 0;
          *d = subdata.1;
        }
      }
    }
  finally
    {
      if (d != 0B)
        {
          if (d->b != 0B)
            {
              __builtin_free ((void *) d->b);
            }
          d->b = 0B;
          __builtin_free ((void *) d);
        }
    }
}

subdata.1 gets freed in the finally block but subdata.0, which is redundant in
any case, does not.

Confirmed - thanks for the report.... I just have to find out why it is we wind
up with two subdata's.

Cheers

Paul