On 09/07/18 00:26, Jeff Law wrote: > On 09/06/2018 04:16 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 09/06/2018 04:01 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >>> On 09/06/2018 11:12 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ah, thanks a lot. >>>> >>>> Okay, this is the status of the STRING-CST semantic-v2 patches: >>>> >>>> [PATCH] Check the STRING_CSTs in varasm.c >>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg01569.html >>>> => Unfortunately I forgot to change the Title to [PATCHv2] or so. >>>> Should I send a ping for this one? >>>> >>>> [PATCHv2] Handle overlength strings in the C FE >>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg01566.html >>>> => Should I send a ping for this one? >>> No need to ping. I've got it here. What's odd is that it's regressing >>> 87053 . >> Which is probably a sign that we've got an incorrect test for NUL >> termination somewhere.
It may be a sign that we should first fix the low level functions before the high level stuff. > I think I've found the issue. I've got more testing to do, but looks > like a thinko on my part. > Ah, I forgot, the regression on pr87053 and fortran.dg/pr45636.f90 is fixed by this patch: [PATCH] Adjust c_getstr/c_strlen to new STRING_CST semantic https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg02013.html This is a new regression since the patch was initially posted. Bernd.
