On Fri, 2023-11-10 at 18:14 -0500, David Malcolm wrote: > On Fri, 2023-11-10 at 11:02 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote: > > Hi. > > This patch fixes the segfault when using -flto with libgccjit (bug > > 111396). > > > > You mentioned in bugzilla that this didn't fix the reproducer for > > you, > > Rereading https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111396 it > looks > like all I tested back in August was your reproducer; I didn't yet > test > your patch. > > > but it does for me. > > At first, the test case would not pass, but running "make install" > > made > > it pass. > > Not sure if this is normal. > > > > Could you please check if this fixes the issue on your side as > > well? > > Since this patch changes files outside of gcc/jit, what tests > > should > > I > > run to make sure it didn't break anything? > > I'm trying your patch in my tester now.
Bootstrapped with x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/build. No changes to non-jit tests, but had this effect on jit.sum: Changes to jit.sum ------------------ FAIL: 9->11 (+2) PASS: 14827->11434 (-3393) apparently due to: FAIL: test-combination.c.exe iteration 1 of 5: verify_code_accessing_bitfield: result is NULL FAIL: test-combination.c.exe killed: 997638 exp16 0 0 CHILDKILLED SIGABRT SIGABRT > > BTW, we shouldn't add test-ggc-bugfix to since it adds options to the > context: this would affect all the other tests.
