Hi!
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 at 20:53, Andre Vehreschild <ve...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > thanks for the ok. Unfortunately does the patch regress in gomp (test case > gomp/pr104382 when I am not mistaken ; the one with the lone 'save' > statement). This was reported by the regression testing host at first for > arm, but also occurs on x86_64. Since when are proposed patches checked by a > CI? That's fantastic! > On the Linaro side, we put "postcommit" CI in production e/o summer 2023, and "precommit" CI a few weeks/months later. We made presentations during the GNU Cauldron 2023 and 2024, as well as during Linaro Connect 2024 :-) In summary we test various configurations of "arm" and "aarch64" targets. If you didn't notice before, it's because your patches were regression-free :-) Always happy to read positive feedback! Thanks Christophe > I will continue to investigate how to fix that issue. > > Regards, > Andre > Andre Vehreschild * ve...@gmx.de > > Am 2. Juni 2025 20:10:06 schrieb Thomas Koenig <tkoe...@netcologne.de>: > >> Hi Andre, >> >> >>> attached patch fixes a missing substring ref on a saved allocatable string. >>> The issue seems to be, that the variable is declared to be a character >>> pointer >>> and not a character array. When using the latter (why not), it works as >>> expected and does not produce any regressions. >>> >>> Regtests ok on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu / F41. Ok for mainlines? >> >> >> OK for trunk and also for backporting to gcc 15 (it is a 15/16 >> regression). >> >> Best regards >> >> Thomas > >
