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 ? Thanks Bernd.
