On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 07:58:37PM +0000, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > On 9/13/19 12:16 PM, Janne Blomqvist wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:07 PM Bernd Edlinger > > <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> this fixes a test case where a short string constant is put in a larger > >> memory object. > >> > >> The consistency check in varasm.c is failed because both types should > >> agree. > >> > >> Since the failed assertion is just a gcc_checking_assert I think a > >> back-port of this fix > >> to the gcc-9 branch will not be necessary. > >> > >> Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. > >> Is it OK for trunk? > >> > >> Thanks > >> Bernd. > > > > Ok. > > > > Well, I have mistakenly assumed that this triggers only a "checking" assert, > but it turned out that is not the case, as written in last comment in the BZ, > immediately after that gcc_checking_assert, there is a gcc_assert, and also > an ICE in the gcc-9 branch. The same patch fixes also the second problem, > and survives reg-bootstrap and testing on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu as expected. > > > So I would like to ask at this time, if it is also OK for gcc-9 ? > >
If you're backporting a patch from trunk to 9-branch, then I think it is ok to commit. -- Steve 20170425 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWUpyCsUKR4 20161221 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbCHE-hONow
