From 58601dba4eeea662fb023c1f8c491bf4f6bb0668 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Leandro Lucarella <llucax@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:09:55 -0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] Remove Gcx destructor

There is no point on freeing memory as the OS will do it for us.
---
 rt/gc/cdgc/gc.d    | 35 -----------------------------------
 rt/gc/cdgc/iface.d |  1 -
 2 files changed, 36 deletions(-)

diff --git a/rt/gc/cdgc/gc.d b/rt/gc/cdgc/gc.d
index 1e95f06..6ed0b1d 100644
--- a/rt/gc/cdgc/gc.d
+++ b/rt/gc/cdgc/gc.d
@@ -143,17 +143,6 @@ class GC
     }
 
 
-    void Dtor()
-    {
-        if (gcx)
-        {
-            gcx.Dtor();
-            cstdlib.free(gcx);
-            gcx = null;
-        }
-    }
-
-
     /**
      *
      */
@@ -1368,30 +1357,6 @@ struct Gcx
     }
 
 
-    void Dtor()
-    {
-        inited = 0;
-
-        for (size_t i = 0; i < npools; i++)
-        {
-            Pool *pool = pooltable[i];
-            pool.Dtor();
-            cstdlib.free(pool);
-        }
-
-        // Even when free() can be called with a null pointer, the extra call
-        // might be significant. On hard GC benchmarks making the test for null
-        // here (i.e. not making the call) can reduce the GC time by almost
-        // ~5%.
-        if (pooltable)
-            cstdlib.free(pooltable);
-        if (roots)
-            cstdlib.free(roots);
-        if (ranges)
-            cstdlib.free(ranges);
-    }
-
-
     void Invariant() { }
 
 
diff --git a/rt/gc/cdgc/iface.d b/rt/gc/cdgc/iface.d
index eb87dfd..fec035a 100644
--- a/rt/gc/cdgc/iface.d
+++ b/rt/gc/cdgc/iface.d
@@ -102,7 +102,6 @@ extern (C) void gc_term()
         //
         _gc.fullCollectNoStack(); // not really a 'collect all' -- still scans
                                   // static data area, roots, and ranges.
-        _gc.Dtor();
     } else {
         // default (safe) clenup
         _gc.fullCollect(); 
-- 
2.43.0