This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug target/81362] [8.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/no-vfa-vect-57.c execution test
- From: "rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:57:19 +0000
- Subject: [Bug target/81362] [8.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/no-vfa-vect-57.c execution test
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-81362-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81362
--- Comment #6 from rdapp at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---
Created attachment 41715
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41715&action=edit
Tentative patch
Removed the npeel function argument, also removed body_cost_vec and the
corresponding release ()es. I'm not so sure about the semantics of vecs in
general. Are we leaking memory when not releasing the body_cost_vecs contained
in the various _vect_peel_extended_infos? If it was RAII-like body_cost_vec
there would have been no need to release () body_cost_vec before, so I assume
it is not.