Here's the updated patch.
The failure was due to the test being in the test array while it should
not have been there since it changes the context.

Thanks for the review.

On Sun, 2023-11-12 at 18:03 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> 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.
> 
>