diff options
| author | Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com> | 2019-01-21 08:41:28 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com> | 2019-01-21 09:05:01 -0700 |
| commit | d7167c671da0323daf31a8e07945c57c25f858d2 (patch) | |
| tree | f51aa2a375d4c9bbeb38df4941b41a0579793682 | |
| parent | 73021deb50855f31bb312241899a464c62155f6a (diff) | |
| download | gdb-d7167c671da0323daf31a8e07945c57c25f858d2.zip gdb-d7167c671da0323daf31a8e07945c57c25f858d2.tar.gz gdb-d7167c671da0323daf31a8e07945c57c25f858d2.tar.bz2 | |
Fix leak in splay-tree
Philippe Waroquiers noticed a memory leak in gdb, which he tracked
down to a bug in splay-tree. splay_tree_remove does not call the
`delete_key' function when it removes the old node; but it should.
I looked at every splay tree in GCC and there is only one that passes
a non-NULL delete function -- the one in lto.c. That file does not
call splay_tree_remove. So, I think this is safe to check in.
I re-ran the LTO tests to double check.
libiberty/
* splay-tree.c (splay_tree_remove): Delete the key if necessary.
| -rw-r--r-- | libiberty/ChangeLog | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | libiberty/splay-tree.c | 2 |
2 files changed, 6 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/libiberty/ChangeLog b/libiberty/ChangeLog index 436fb96..496d76d 100644 --- a/libiberty/ChangeLog +++ b/libiberty/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2019-01-21 Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com> + + * splay-tree.c (splay_tree_remove): Delete the key if necessary. + 2019-01-01 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> Update copyright years. diff --git a/libiberty/splay-tree.c b/libiberty/splay-tree.c index 920e68d..21d23c3 100644 --- a/libiberty/splay-tree.c +++ b/libiberty/splay-tree.c @@ -425,6 +425,8 @@ splay_tree_remove (splay_tree sp, splay_tree_key key) right = sp->root->right; /* Delete the root node itself. */ + if (sp->delete_key) + (*sp->delete_key) (sp->root->key); if (sp->delete_value) (*sp->delete_value) (sp->root->value); (*sp->deallocate) (sp->root, sp->allocate_data); |