[Bug tree-optimization/69400] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O and int128

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69400 --- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: rsandifo Date: Tue Jan 26 09:53:33 2016 New Revision: 232817 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232817=gcc=rev Log: PR 69400: Invalid 128-bit modulus result As described in the

[Bug target/67896] Inconsistent behaviour between C and C++ for types poly8x8_t and poly16x8_t

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67896 --- Comment #3 from James Greenhalgh --- Author: jgreenhalgh Date: Tue Jan 26 10:04:46 2016 New Revision: 232818 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232818=gcc=rev Log: [PATCH] Do not set structural equality on polynomial types gcc/ChangeLog:

[Bug middle-end/69454] [6 Regression] ix86_expand_prologue internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454 --- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek --- But it is for a relatively uncommon case (-mpreferred-stack-boundary lower than default) and furthermore, you need to have something spilled to trigger it. Hopefully the most commonly used regs in loops

[Bug target/69442] [6 Regression] wrong code with -Og and 64bit modulo @ armv7a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69442 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Jan 26 11:12:03 2016 New Revision: 232819 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232819=gcc=rev Log: PR target/69442 * combine.c (combine_instructions): For REG_EQUAL

[Bug libstdc++/69478] [4.9/5/6 Regression] std::copy/std::move broken with trivial move-only types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69478 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4

[Bug fortran/69268] [5 Regression] Sourced allocation calls function twice

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69268 vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug libstdc++/69486] New: Strange behaviour of bitset and c++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69486 Bug ID: 69486 Summary: Strange behaviour of bitset and c++11 Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++

[Bug lto/69408] LD crashes with LTO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69408 --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to night_ghost from comment #4) > I can attach script which GCC has been built, and ZIP of the project tree > which cause crash. Hi. That would be beneficial!

[Bug tree-optimization/69483] [6 Regression] gcc ICE on x86_64-linux-gnu with "expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in useless_type_conversion_p"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69483 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug fortran/69484] New: documentation issue: -Wtabs and -Wall

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69484 Bug ID: 69484 Summary: documentation issue: -Wtabs and -Wall Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug target/69442] [6 Regression] wrong code with -Og and 64bit modulo @ armv7a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69442 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/68654] [6 Regression] CoreMark Pro performance degradation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68654 --- Comment #16 from Richard Biener --- Created attachment 37474 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37474=edit patch for SSA name management This patch changes SSA name freelist management to keep the freelist sorted and at

[Bug target/66655] [5/6 Regression] miscompilation due to ipa-ra on MinGW

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655 --- Comment #25 from Rainer Emrich --- I'm testing rev. 232815, proposed patch applied, on x86_64-w64-mingw32 atm. Will take some time.

[Bug tree-optimization/69483] New: gcc ICE on x86_64-linux-gnu with "expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in useless_type_conversion_p"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69483 Bug ID: 69483 Summary: gcc ICE on x86_64-linux-gnu with "expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in useless_type_conversion_p" Product: gcc

[Bug libstdc++/69478] [4.9/5/6 Regression] std::copy/std::move broken with trivial move-only types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69478 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug ada/69476] accept size clause for 2-level discriminated record types with fixed sizes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69476 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/69467] [6 Regression] Pattern X * C1 CMP 0 to X CMP 0 causes performance drop on 32-bit x86.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69467 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Tue Jan 26 12:05:22 2016 New Revision: 232821 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232821=gcc=rev Log: 2016-01-26 Richard Biener PR middle-end/69467

[Bug fortran/69268] [5 Regression] Sourced allocation calls function twice

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69268 vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING --- Comment #2 from

[Bug target/66655] [5/6 Regression] miscompilation due to ipa-ra on MinGW

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655 --- Comment #26 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Roger, > I've tried the patch (applied to 232400 as trunk seems to have other > problems on cygwin) and the build now completes successfully. Including libstdc++-v3 ? > Additionally, the test case no

[Bug tree-optimization/69483] [6 Regression] gcc ICE on x86_64-linux-gnu with "expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in useless_type_conversion_p"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69483 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/69400] [5 Regression] wrong code with -O and int128

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69400 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[5/6 Regression] wrong code |[5 Regression] wrong code

[Bug middle-end/69454] [6 Regression] ix86_expand_prologue internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454 --- Comment #13 from Ilya Enkovich --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > Already during the expansion TARGET_STV makes quite a big difference, won't > just disabling the stv pass cause performance regression to -mno-stv? There is a

[Bug middle-end/67295] [ARM][6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/arm/builtin-bswap-1.c scan-assembler-times revshne\\t 1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67295 --- Comment #13 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- We can look at the impact of enabling ree for arm for GCC 7 then.

[Bug libstdc++/69478] [4.9/5/6 Regression] std::copy/std::move broken with trivial move-only types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69478 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid

[Bug fortran/69484] [5/6 Regression] documentation issue: -Wtabs and -Wall

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69484 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|documentation issue: -Wtabs |[5/6 Regression]

[Bug tree-optimization/68654] [6 Regression] CoreMark Pro performance degradation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68654 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug tree-optimization/68654] [6 Regression] CoreMark Pro performance degradation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68654 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/69454] [6 Regression] ix86_expand_prologue internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454 --- Comment #15 from Ilya Enkovich --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14) > Have you tried H.J's patch? If I understand it right, IMHO at least the > *mov_internal changes look desirable to me after the recent changes > where

[Bug target/69471] "-march=native" unintentionally breaks further -march/-mtune flags

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69471 --- Comment #4 from wavexx at thregr dot org --- Since I couldn't find documentation for it either, doesn't -march=haswell by itself imply all associated ISA features? If so, why -march=native expands to all individual features explicitly?

[Bug c++/69510] segfault in write_template_prefix while compiling C++ template code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69510 Mike Frysinger changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||4.7.4, 4.8.5

[Bug c++/69510] segfault in write_template_prefix while compiling C++ template code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69510 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/67337] [4.9/5 Regression] Segmentation fault on a template class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67337 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vapier at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug tree-optimization/69399] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O and int128

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69399 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.4

[Bug fortran/69268] [5 Regression] Sourced allocation calls function twice

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69268 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Status|WAITING

[Bug tree-optimization/69336] Constant value not detected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69336 Dominik Vogt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---

[Bug rtl-optimization/69447] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fno-schedule-insns and mixed 8/16/32/64bit arithmetics @ armv7a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447 Richard Henderson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #8 from

[Bug c/69507] bogus warning: ISO C does not allow ‘__alignof__ (expression)’

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69507 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- Created attachment 37483 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37483=edit Proposed patch. Attaching a proposed patch tested on x86_64-linux. Since GCC is in stage 4 (regression fixes only)

[Bug tree-optimization/69347] [6 regression] excessive compile time with -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69347 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/69484] [5/6 Regression] documentation issue: -Wtabs and -Wall

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69484 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.4

[Bug rtl-optimization/69482] Writing through pointers to volatile not always preserved

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69482 --- Comment #4 from wipedout at yandex dot ru --- Okay, suppose we have the following scenario. There's a third party library with an encryption function like this: void encrypt( void* data, void* key ); That function is compiled into as a

[Bug rtl-optimization/69447] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fno-schedule-insns and mixed 8/16/32/64bit arithmetics @ armv7a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447 --- Comment #9 from Richard Henderson --- Created attachment 37484 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37484=edit proposed patch Fixes the test case, in that it prevents the remat. Starting overnight bootstraps for armv7hf,

[Bug c++/69510] New: segfault in write_template_prefix while compiling C++ template code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69510 Bug ID: 69510 Summary: segfault in write_template_prefix while compiling C++ template code Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/57315] LTO and/or vectorizer performance regression on salsa20 core, 4.7->4.8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57315 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/60818] ICE in validate_condition_mode on powerpc-e500v2-linux-gnuspe

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60818 Arseny Solokha changed: What|Removed |Added Target|powerpc-e500v2-linux-gnuspe |powerpc-e500v2-linux-gnuspe

[Bug lto/69408] LD crashes with LTO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69408 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug middle-end/69454] [6 Regression] ix86_expand_prologue internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454 --- Comment #20 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #19) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #17) > > Do you have a testcase to show that you need to realign stack for STV? > > Reproducer for this tracker is such test,

[Bug c++/69487] New: Unexpected VLA initialization of char[] from ""

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69487 Bug ID: 69487 Summary: Unexpected VLA initialization of char[] from "" Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/60410] [4.9/5/6 Regression] -fshort-double ICEs x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60410 Bernd Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/45216] Rotate expressions not recognized at tree level

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45216 --- Comment #12 from Bernd Schmidt --- It looks like a patch was committed - can this be closed?

[Bug fortran/69485] oddity with -Wtabs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69485 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug middle-end/69454] [6 Regression] ix86_expand_prologue internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454 --- Comment #21 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #20) > (In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #19) > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #17) > > > Do you have a testcase to show that you need to realign stack for STV? > > >

[Bug target/67896] Inconsistent behaviour between C and C++ for types poly8x8_t and poly16x8_t

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67896 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/66655] [5/6 Regression] miscompilation due to ipa-ra on MinGW

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655 --- Comment #27 from Rainer Emrich --- -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Am 26.01.2016 um 10:30 schrieb nickc at gcc dot gnu.org: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655 > > --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/45216] Rotate expressions not recognized at tree level

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45216 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/68654] [6 Regression] CoreMark Pro performance degradation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68654 --- Comment #17 from Alexander Fomin --- Unfortunately, it doesn't. Moreover, it causes another perf loss (about 1.2%).

[Bug rtl-optimization/69052] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r229402.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69052 --- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #6) > (In reply to amker from comment #5) > > Not sure if stage4 is a good time for a new hook either. > > > > Any ideas? > > We can try to improve i386

[Bug middle-end/69454] [6 Regression] ix86_expand_prologue internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454 --- Comment #22 from Ilya Enkovich --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #21) > In another word, STV needs 128-bit aligned stack only when it generates > 12-bit vector instructions. STV never generates such instructions. But RA may spill SSE

[Bug libstdc++/65434] Memory leak in pool constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65434 Emil Styrke changed: What|Removed |Added CC||emil.styrke at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug target/68662] [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/lto/20090210 c_lto_20090210_0.o-c_lto_20090210_1.o link, -O2 -flto -flto-partition=none -fuse-linker-plugin -fno-fat-lto-objects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68662 --- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn --- Unconditionally generating toc_label_name is okay with me, but I thought that Alan commented it was not sufficient in Comment #2.

[Bug middle-end/69454] [6 Regression] ix86_expand_prologue internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454 --- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #22) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #21) > > In another word, STV needs 128-bit aligned stack only when it generates > > 12-bit vector instructions. > > STV never

[Bug c++/69487] Unexpected VLA initialization of char[] from ""

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69487 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug c/28901] -Wunused-variable ignores unused const initialised variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901 --- Comment #19 from Chen Gang --- I build linux kernel with allyesconfig under x86_64 for linux-next tree 20160122. I can find some related cases for BUG28901 (but they are not quite much), one case is below: CC drivers/acpi/sbshc.o In

[Bug middle-end/69454] [6 Regression] ix86_expand_prologue internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454 --- Comment #24 from Ilya Enkovich --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #23) > (In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #22) > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #21) > > > In another word, STV needs 128-bit aligned stack only when it generates

[Bug target/66655] [5/6 Regression] miscompilation due to ipa-ra on MinGW

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655 --- Comment #28 from Nick Clifton --- Author: nickc Date: Tue Jan 26 14:02:11 2016 New Revision: 232828 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232828=gcc=rev Log: PR target/66655 * config/i386/winnt.c (i386_pe_binds_local_p): If a

[Bug c/28901] -Wunused-variable ignores unused const initialised variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901 --- Comment #20 from Chen Gang --- (In reply to Chen Gang from comment #19) > I build linux kernel with allyesconfig under x86_64 for linux-next tree > 20160122. I can find some related cases for BUG28901 (but they are not quite > much), one

[Bug target/66655] [5/6 Regression] miscompilation due to ipa-ra on MinGW

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/69486] Strange behaviour of bitset and c++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69486 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/66655] [5/6 Regression] miscompilation due to ipa-ra on MinGW

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655 --- Comment #30 from Alexander Monakov --- Nick, can you please post the patch to gcc-patches too, to avoid confusing future people who wouldn't be able to find the explanation of the patch in the archives? (did you get approval for this patch

[Bug rtl-optimization/69482] Writing through pointers to volatile not always preserved

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69482 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, wipedout at yandex dot ru wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69482 > > wipedout at yandex dot ru changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug libstdc++/69486] Strange behaviour of bitset and c++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69486 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||compile-time-hog, |

[Bug testsuite/69488] New: tests in gnat/sso give a lot of incorrect FAIL results, output pattern matching goes wrong on mingw host

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69488 Bug ID: 69488 Summary: tests in gnat/sso give a lot of incorrect FAIL results, output pattern matching goes wrong on mingw host Product: gcc Version: 6.0

[Bug target/66655] [5/6 Regression] miscompilation due to ipa-ra on MinGW

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66655 --- Comment #31 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Alexander, > Nick, can you please post the patch to gcc-patches too, to avoid confusing > future people who wouldn't be able to find the explanation of the patch in the > archives? > (did you get

[Bug tree-optimization/69489] New: missed vectorization for boolean loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69489 Bug ID: 69489 Summary: missed vectorization for boolean loop Product: gcc Version: 5.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/69355] [5 Regression] Wrong results with -O1 optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355 --- Comment #19 from Martin Jambor --- Because the reduced testcase from comment #10 does not fail for me (on revision 232662), I have tried to use creduce myself but have never ended up with anything useful (I got source with undefined behavior

[Bug tree-optimization/45216] Rotate expressions not recognized at tree level

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45216 --- Comment #14 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Bernd Schmidt from comment #12) > It looks like a patch was committed - can this be closed? There is still PR62263, so not all cases are handled, but if all those mentioned in this PR are fixed,

[Bug lto/69254] [6 Regression] ICE in streamer_get_builtin_tree when using -fsanitize=shift on the compile side only

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69254 --- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Jan 26 14:25:56 2016 New Revision: 232829 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232829=gcc=rev Log: PR lto/69254 * lto-wrapper.c (merge_and_complain): Handle

[Bug middle-end/69454] [6 Regression] ix86_expand_prologue internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69454 --- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #24) > Well, I'll try to just remove alignment code from STV and see what happens. Please add -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 to your tests. Otherwise, you just remove a

[Bug tree-optimization/69355] [5 Regression] Wrong results with -O1 optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69355 --- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #19) > Because the reduced testcase from comment #10 does not fail for me (on > revision 232662), I have tried to use creduce myself but have never > ended up with

[Bug tree-optimization/68654] [6 Regression] CoreMark Pro performance degradation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68654 --- Comment #18 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Alexander Fomin from comment #17) > Unfortunately, it doesn't. Moreover, it causes another perf loss (about > 1.2%). Heh. What about testcases?

[Bug jit/69490] New: jit testsuite failures (segmentation fault) on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69490 Bug ID: 69490 Summary: jit testsuite failures (segmentation fault) on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/32306] [4.9/5/6 Regression] redundant && || not eliminated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32306 Bernd Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/69461] [6 Regression] ICE in lra_set_insn_recog_data, at lra.c:964

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69461 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Version|5.3.0

[Bug jit/69490] jit testsuite failures (segmentation fault) on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69490 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- Thanks for reporting this. Which exact version are you testing with? This looks a lot like PR 68446, which was fixed in r232567.

[Bug tree-optimization/69489] missed vectorization for boolean loop, missed if-conversion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69489 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/69489] missed vectorization for boolean loop, missed if-conversion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69489 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- And in the end it is also related to PR23286, the inability to hoist the v[i] load out of if (u[i]) ... = v[i]; else ... = v[i]; which would also enable the if-conversion.

[Bug tree-optimization/69282] [6 Regression] aarch64/armhf ICE on SPEC2006 464.h264ref at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69282 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target|aarch64-linux-gnu |aarch64-linux-gnu,

[Bug c++/69486] Strange behaviour of bitset and c++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69486 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Component|libstdc++ |c++ --- Comment #3 from Jonathan

[Bug jit/69490] jit testsuite failures (segmentation fault) on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69490 --- Comment #2 from Rainer Emrich --- -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Am 26.01.2016 um 15:50 schrieb dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69490 > > --- Comment

[Bug c++/69486] Strange behaviour of bitset and c++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69486 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/56671] Gcc uses large amounts of memory and processor power with large C++11 bitsets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56671 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||boris at dolgov dot name --- Comment

[Bug c++/68399] c++11 default initialization of a large array: slow compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68399 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/56671] Gcc uses large amounts of memory and processor power with large C++11 bitsets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56671 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kcc at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug lto/68685] LTO build hits ICE in copy_to_mode_reg, at explow.c:595

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68685 Anton Blanchard changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/68620] ICE on gcc.target/arm/attr-neon-fp16.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68620 --- Comment #8 from Christophe Lyon --- Author: clyon Date: Tue Jan 26 15:17:00 2016 New Revision: 232832 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232832=gcc=rev Log: 2016-01-26 Christophe Lyon gcc/

[Bug c++/68203] Аbout infinite compilation time on struct with nested array of pairs with -std=c++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68203 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- Probably PR 56671

[Bug tree-optimization/69489] missed vectorization for boolean loop, missed if-conversion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69489 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug c++/55402] Compiling large initializer lists never finishes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55402 --- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely --- Similar to PR 56671 but -fno-exceptions doesn't help there, the issue is that the initializer-list is in a constexpr constructor.

[Bug c++/56671] Gcc uses large amounts of memory and processor power with large C++11 bitsets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56671 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/69447] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fno-schedule-insns and mixed 8/16/32/64bit arithmetics @ armv7a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69447 --- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- -fno-lra-remat makes the testcase pass. Could this be a dup of PR 69124?

[Bug rtl-optimization/68730] [6 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu (in 32-bit mode)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68730 Bernd Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org

  1   2   3   >