[Bug c++/60211] [4.9/5 Regression] ICE with #pragma GCC ivdep and for-loop on global scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60211 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug lto/64076] [4.9/5 Regression] ICE: in update_visibility_by_resolution_info, at ipa-visibility.c:427

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64076 tbsaunde at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tbsaunde at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/64432] New: [5 Regression] SYSTEM_CLOCK(COUNT_RATE=rate) wrong result for integer(4)::rate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432 Bug ID: 64432 Summary: [5 Regression] SYSTEM_CLOCK(COUNT_RATE=rate) wrong result for integer(4)::rate Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/60357] [F08] structure constructor with unspecified values for allocatable components

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60357 --- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: janus Date: Mon Dec 29 10:45:21 2014 New Revision: 219098 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219098root=gccview=rev Log: 2014-12-29 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org PR fortran/60357

[Bug fortran/60357] [F08] structure constructor with unspecified values for allocatable components

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60357 --- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- The original problem in comment 0 is fixed with r219098. Thanks to Anthony for reporting this! TODO: The segfault reported by Dominique in comment 4 and 5.

[Bug fortran/64432] [5 Regression] SYSTEM_CLOCK(COUNT_RATE=rate) wrong result for integer(4)::rate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432 --- Comment #1 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de --- Modifying the test code as follows: % cat gfcbug128b.f90 program gfcbug128b integer(4) :: count_rate, count_max call system_clock (count_rate=count_rate,count_max=count_max) call

[Bug fortran/64432] [5 Regression] SYSTEM_CLOCK(COUNT_RATE=rate) wrong result for integer(4)::rate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432 Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/64432] [5 Regression] SYSTEM_CLOCK(COUNT_RATE=rate) wrong result for integer(4)::rate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432 --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #0) I just discovered that the 20141227 snapshot breaks SYSTEM_CLOCK when the COUNT_RATE argument is a 32-bit integer: Confirmed. Probably due to r211686.

[Bug fortran/64432] [5 Regression] SYSTEM_CLOCK(COUNT_RATE=rate) wrong result for integer(4)::rate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug fortran/58906] [OOP] SELECT TYPE with CLASS IS generates ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58906 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug fortran/60507] Passing function call into procedure argument not caught

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60507 --- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #5) What is the status of the patch in comment 4? Alive 'n' kickin' ;) Still applies (with a bit of fuzz) and regtests cleanly.

[Bug target/64368] [5 Regression] Several libstdc++ test failures on darwin and others after r218964.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64368 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- Who is waving anything away? I've been fixing things for Darwin at all hours of the day, while on vacation and while ill, so don't appreciate that comment. I have run the years in

[Bug c++/64433] New: Segmentation fault while compiling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64433 Bug ID: 64433 Summary: Segmentation fault while compiling Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug fortran/63552] [OOP] Type-bound procedures rejected as actual argument to dummy procedure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63552 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug target/64387] ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2327 (unrecognizable insn) with -ffloat-store -mavx512er

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64387 tocarip.intel at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tocarip.intel at gmail

[Bug target/64387] ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2327 (unrecognizable insn) with -ffloat-store -mavx512er

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64387 --- Comment #2 from tocarip.intel at gmail dot com --- Can also be reproduced with -mavx2 instead of -mavx512er. Proposed patch fixes both cases. Testing in progress.

[Bug fortran/63552] [OOP] Type-bound procedures rejected as actual argument to dummy procedure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63552 --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- This draft patch gets rid of the error and regtests cleanly: Index: gcc/fortran/primary.c === --- gcc/fortran/primary.c

[Bug fortran/64432] [5 Regression] SYSTEM_CLOCK(COUNT_RATE=rate) wrong result for integer(4)::rate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432 Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/64368] [5 Regression] Several libstdc++ test failures on darwin and others after r218964.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64368 --- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9) Who is waving anything away? I wasn't referring to you. Apparently I was referring to a comment that was supposed to be ignored.

[Bug target/64368] [5 Regression] Several libstdc++ test failures on darwin and others after r218964.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64368 --- Comment #11 from Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 34344 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34344action=edit Call-trace for testsuite/22_locale/locale/cons/6.cc on cris-elf, a newlib target

[Bug fortran/60357] [F08] structure constructor with unspecified values for allocatable components

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60357 Andre Vehreschild vehre at gmx dot de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vehre at gmx dot

[Bug fortran/64432] [5 Regression] SYSTEM_CLOCK(COUNT_RATE=rate) wrong result for integer(4)::rate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432 --- Comment #5 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de --- (In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #4) I'm not sure this is a bug, but this was definitely by design (as the comment indicates). I think this is allowed by the successive

[Bug tree-optimization/64434] New: Performance regression after operand canonicalization (r216728).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64434 Bug ID: 64434 Summary: Performance regression after operand canonicalization (r216728). Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/64434] Performance regression after operand canonicalization (r216728).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64434 --- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com --- Created attachment 34345 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34345action=edit simple reproducer Need to compile with -m32 on x86 platform.

[Bug fortran/64432] [5 Regression] SYSTEM_CLOCK(COUNT_RATE=rate) wrong result for integer(4)::rate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432 --- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de --- (In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #5) Also, the presence of a second argument (see comment #1) should not change the behavior. To make that explicit: % cat gfcbug128c.f90

[Bug target/64393] ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2327 (unrecognizable insn) with -mavx512vbmi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64393 tocarip.intel at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tocarip.intel at gmail

[Bug sanitizer/64435] New: [5.0.0 Regression] Bootstrap failure in libsanitizer on AArch64 with Linux kernel = 3.15

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64435 Bug ID: 64435 Summary: [5.0.0 Regression] Bootstrap failure in libsanitizer on AArch64 with Linux kernel = 3.15 Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/64433] Segmentation fault while compiling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64433 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug tree-optimization/64434] [5 Regression] Performance regression after operand cannibalization (r216728).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64434 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug tree-optimization/64434] [5 Regression] Performance regression after operand cannibalization (r216728).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64434 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment

[Bug target/64386] ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2327 (unrecognizable insn) with -mavx512bw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64386 tocarip.intel at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tocarip.intel at gmail

[Bug tree-optimization/64434] [5 Regression] Performance regression after operand cannibalization (r216728).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64434 --- Comment #3 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com --- I put into attachment two assembly files for test-case compiled with -O2 -m32 -S options.

[Bug tree-optimization/64434] [5 Regression] Performance regression after operand cannibalization (r216728).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64434 --- Comment #4 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com --- Created attachment 34348 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34348action=edit assembly files for test.c Assembly file fro test.c

[Bug tree-optimization/64434] [5 Regression] Performance regression after operand cannibalization (r216728).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64434 --- Comment #5 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com --- Created attachment 34349 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34349action=edit assembly file before r216728 Assembly file.

[Bug tree-optimization/64434] [5 Regression] Performance regression after operand cannibalization (r216728).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64434 --- Comment #6 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com --- H.J. I put before/after assembly files into bug attachment. We saw slowdown on SLM and HSW for 32-bit on eembc2.0, e.g. des degradated on 36% (SLM) and 7%(HSW). But we did not see

[Bug tree-optimization/64434] [5 Regression] Performance regression after operand cannibalization (r216728).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64434 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- r216728 generates much longer code sequences. Where does it come from? Does -m64 also generate longer code sequences?

[Bug tree-optimization/64436] New: optimize-bswapdi-3.c fails on aarch64_be-none-elf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64436 Bug ID: 64436 Summary: optimize-bswapdi-3.c fails on aarch64_be-none-elf Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/64436] optimize-bswapdi-3.c fails on aarch64_be-none-elf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64436 thopre01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last

[Bug fortran/60357] [F08] structure constructor with unspecified values for allocatable components

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60357 --- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Andre Vehreschild from comment #9) I just need to figure, if allocating the component explicitly is valid in Fortran. For sure. I think both the examples in comment 4 and 5 are

[Bug tree-optimization/64434] [5 Regression] Performance regression after operand cannibalization (r216728).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64434 --- Comment #8 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com --- The issue is caused by operand canonicalization, i.e. there is special operand odering for commutative operations to have the same representation for a + b and b + a. If

[Bug target/64412] [regression] ICE in offload compiler: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2327

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64412 --- Comment #4 from iverbin at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3) (In reply to iverbin from comment #2) (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1) (In reply to iverbin from comment #0) To reproduce using Intel Xeon Phi

[Bug target/64412] [regression] ICE in offload compiler: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2327

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64412 --- Comment #5 from iverbin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 34350 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34350action=edit Source code

[Bug target/64412] [regression] ICE in offload compiler: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2327

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64412 --- Comment #6 from iverbin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 34351 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34351action=edit pr64412.s

[Bug tree-optimization/64434] [5 Regression] Performance regression after operand canonicalization (r216728).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64434 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[5 Regression] Performance |[5 Regression]

[Bug tree-optimization/64434] [5 Regression] Performance regression after operand canonicalization (r216728).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64434 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de --- On December 29, 2014 5:56:25 PM CET, ysrumyan at gmail dot com gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64434 --- Comment #8 from Yuri

[Bug fortran/47674] gfortran.dg/realloc_on_assign_5.f03: Segfault at run time for deferred (allocatable) string length

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47674 Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig

[Bug fortran/60357] [F08] structure constructor with unspecified values for allocatable components

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60357 --- Comment #11 from Andre Vehreschild vehre at gmx dot de --- Hi Janus, before you invest too much time into that: My current patch level produces intermediate code as attached (for a slightly different program, also attached). I was solving

[Bug fortran/60357] [F08] structure constructor with unspecified values for allocatable components

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60357 --- Comment #12 from Andre Vehreschild vehre at gmx dot de --- Created attachment 34353 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34353action=edit test_pr60357.f08

[Bug fortran/60289] allocating class(*) pointer as character gives type-spec requires the same character-length parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60289 --- Comment #5 from Andre Vehreschild vehre at gmx dot de --- Patch available in: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2014-12/msg00133.html

[Bug regression/64437] New: hang with iconv on the configure : checking whether the C compiler works

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64437 Bug ID: 64437 Summary: hang with iconv on the configure : checking whether the C compiler works Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug libstdc++/53579] libstdc++ configure use CXXFLAGS instead of CXXFLAGS_FOR_TARGET

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53579 --- Comment #3 from Anatol anatol.pomozov at gmail dot com --- I just hit this issue when tried to build cross-tools for arm64. CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET works as expected and I was assuming that CXXFLAGS_FOR_TARGET is used instead of CXXFLAGS. If

[Bug regression/64437] hang with iconv on the configure : checking whether the C compiler works

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64437 --- Comment #1 from fredm dark_footix at yahoo dot fr --- Created attachment 34355 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34355action=edit configure file of iconv checking whether the C compiler works appear line 4048

[Bug regression/64437] hang with iconv on the configure : checking whether the C compiler works

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64437 Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING

[Bug regression/64437] hang with iconv on the configure : checking whether the C compiler works

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64437 --- Comment #3 from fredm dark_footix at yahoo dot fr --- configure:4058: checking whether the C compiler works configure:4080: ccache

[Bug regression/64437] hang with iconv on the configure : checking whether the C compiler works

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64437 --- Comment #4 from fredm dark_footix at yahoo dot fr --- cat conftest.c /* confdefs.h */ #define PACKAGE_NAME #define PACKAGE_TARNAME #define PACKAGE_VERSION #define PACKAGE_STRING #define PACKAGE_BUGREPORT #define PACKAGE_URL #define

[Bug target/64412] [regression] ICE in offload compiler: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2327

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64412 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #7

[Bug sanitizer/64435] [5.0.0 Regression] Bootstrap failure in libsanitizer on AArch64 with Linux kernel = 3.15

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64435 --- Comment #1 from David Abdurachmanov david.abdurachmanov at gmail dot com --- Created attachment 34356 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34356action=edit RFC patch (tested) Bootstrapped on aarch64-linux-gnu machine with F19

[Bug sanitizer/64435] [5.0.0 Regression] Bootstrap failure in libsanitizer on AArch64 with Linux kernel = 3.15

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64435 --- Comment #2 from David Abdurachmanov david.abdurachmanov at gmail dot com --- linux/version.h does not bring any additional kernel headers, its fully standalone and seems fine to include. There might be a problem is someone builds a

[Bug libstdc++/64438] New: Removing string-conversion requirement causes libstdc++-v3 fails on AArch64.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64438 Bug ID: 64438 Summary: Removing string-conversion requirement causes libstdc++-v3 fails on AArch64. Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug target/53988] [SH] tst Rm,Rn not used for QI/HImode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53988 Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Last

[Bug target/64412] [regression] ICE in offload compiler: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2327

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64412 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.0

[Bug target/64412] [regression] ICE in offload compiler: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2327

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64412 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Created attachment 34357 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34357action=edit A patch Can you try this?

[Bug c/64439] New: Incorrect location of -Wunused-value or false negative

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64439 Bug ID: 64439 Summary: Incorrect location of -Wunused-value or false negative Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/64432] [5 Regression] SYSTEM_CLOCK(COUNT_RATE=rate) wrong result for integer(4)::rate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432 --- Comment #7 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de --- (In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #5) (In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #4) If you have another idea, please post a list of what you think should happen in all

[Bug c++/64422] basic_string::erase is unresloved

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64422 Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #34341|0 |1

[Bug fortran/55534] -Wno-missing-include-dirs does not work with gfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55534 --- Comment #9 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #8) (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #7) The ideal fix for this would adding a function like: I forgot about this bug and

[Bug target/64412] [regression] ICE in offload compiler: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2327

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64412 --- Comment #9 from iverbin at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8) Created attachment 34357 [details] A patch Can you try this? Thank you, e.53.5.c now passed. However for-3.c and for-11.C still fails with another

[Bug target/64412] [regression] ICE in offload compiler: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2327

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64412 --- Comment #10 from iverbin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 34359 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34359action=edit pr64412_2.c

[Bug target/64412] [regression] ICE in offload compiler: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2327

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64412 --- Comment #11 from iverbin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 34360 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34360action=edit pr64412_2.s

[Bug target/57037] GCC does not generate non-temporal stores on i386 with SSE2+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57037 --- Comment #1 from Harald Anlauf anlauf at gmx dot de --- (In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #0) gfortran (using -Ofast -fprefetch-loop-arrays) exactly reproduces the performance of the Intel compiler without temporal stores. It appears

[Bug c/64423] Incorrect column number of -Wchar-subscripts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64423 Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug target/63681] ICE in cfg_layout_initialize, at cfgrtl.c:4233

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63681 --- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson mikpelinux at gmail dot com --- The ICE on bfin-elf started for 4.9 with r204985, and stopped for 5.0 with r210683. Backporting r210683 to current 4.9 branch is easy and fixes the ICE there too. I haven't

[Bug fortran/55534] -Wno-missing-include-dirs does not work with gfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55534 --- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #9) (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #8) (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #7) The ideal fix for this

Opportunity Never Wait for Anybody : New Session Announcement For Distance Learning Courses

Get MBA, E-MBA , MMS, DMS, PGDBM ,DBM etc done without disturbing your job... Any Certificate NO Donation / Percentage Barrier International Attestations by Ministry of External Affairs and Foreign Affairs (Charges apply*) GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE YOUR CAREER: Please reply to this mail

[Bug target/64412] [regression] ICE in offload compiler: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2327

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64412 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #34357|0 |1 is

[Bug c++/64433] Segmentation fault while compiling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64433 Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktietz at gcc dot

[Bug c/64439] Incorrect location of -Wunused-value or false negative

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64439 Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc

[Bug regression/64437] hang with iconv on the configure : checking whether the C compiler works

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64437 fredm dark_footix at yahoo dot fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED

[Bug c/64440] New: -Wdiv-by-zero false negative on const variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64440 Bug ID: 64440 Summary: -Wdiv-by-zero false negative on const variables Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c/64440] -Wdiv-by-zero false negative on const variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64440 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org --- In C, const int is not a constant expression and -Wdiv-by-zero only warns about integer constant expressions.

[Bug fortran/52010] [OOP] Intrinsic assignment of a CLASS to a TYPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52010 Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||damian at

[Bug bootstrap/50139] in-tree GMP/PPL/CLooG is misconfigured

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50139 --- Comment #3 from nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com --- Both cloog and ppl have been removed from GCC in favor of just isl. GCC 4.8 removes ppl in 2012: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg01470.html GCC 5.0 removes cloog:

[Bug c/64440] -Wdiv-by-zero false negative on const variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64440 --- Comment #2 from Chengnian Sun chengniansun at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) In C, const int is not a constant expression and -Wdiv-by-zero only warns about integer constant expressions. Thanks for your