[Bug c++/69901] Iniitializing non-const global array variable from runtime const global variable does not copy all values properly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69901 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE --- Comment #5 from Andrew

[Bug c++/67550] [5/6 regression] Initialization of local struct array with elements of global array yields zeros instead of initializer values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67550 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||piotrwn1 at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/69901] Iniitializing non-const global array variable from runtime const global variable does not copy all values properly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69901 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug fortran/69930] fortran address sanitizer does not work with optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69930 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/69901] Iniitializing non-const global array variable from runtime const global variable does not copy all values properly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69901 --- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Piotr Nycz from comment #2) > How to get information in which version it is fixed? > What we discover ourselves: > 4.9.1 - work > 4.9.2 - fail > 4.9.4 - work > 5.2 - fail > 6.0

[Bug fortran/65996] [5/6 Regression] gfortran ICE with -dH

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65996 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/65996] [5/6 Regression] gfortran ICE with -dH

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65996 --- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle --- Author: jvdelisle Date: Wed Feb 24 06:45:41 2016 New Revision: 233653 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233653=gcc=rev Log: 2016-02-23 Jerry DeLisle Backported from

[Bug c++/69564] [5/6 Regression] lto and/or C++ make scimark2 LU slower

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|jason at gcc dot

[Bug c++/69912] [6 regression] ICE in build_ctor_subob_ref initializing a flexible array member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69912 --- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor --- Patch posted for review: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01614.html

[Bug tree-optimization/69935] load not hoisted out of linked-list traversal loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69935 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|load not skinked out of |load not hoisted out of

[Bug tree-optimization/69935] load not skinked out of linked-list traversal loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69935 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|load not hoisted out of |load not skinked out of

[Bug tree-optimization/69935] New: load not hoisted out of linked-list traversal loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69935 Bug ID: 69935 Summary: load not hoisted out of linked-list traversal loop Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/69933] New: non-ideal branch layout for an early-out return

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69933 Bug ID: 69933 Summary: non-ideal branch layout for an early-out return Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/60818] ICE in validate_condition_mode on powerpc*-linux-gnu*

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60818 --- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool --- Not a regression, postponed to GCC 7, last patch is at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01303.html .

[Bug plugins/69758] [6 Regression] Plugins can't include params.h (missing params.list)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69758 PaX Team changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pageexec at gmail dot com --- Comment #4

[Bug plugins/61176] plugin builds including gimple.h not building

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61176 --- Comment #21 from PaX Team --- (In reply to PaX Team from comment #20) > update for gcc-6: /gcc/params.list is also needed now as it gets > included by params.h. PR69758 fixes it.

[Bug fortran/60126] Internal compiler error with code using pointer reshaping (gfortran 4.8.2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60126 --- Comment #3 from Michel Valin --- for what it's worth, the bug is not present in 4.9.1 nor 5.3 Michel Valin analyste de l'informatique On 16-02-23 05:30 PM, anlauf at gmx dot de wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60126 >

[Bug tree-optimization/69932] New: gcc ICE at -O1 and above on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu with “seg fault”

--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib Thread model: posix gcc version 6.0.0 20160223 (experimental) [trunk revision 233632] (GCC) $ gcc-trunk abc.c -c -O3 abc.c: In function ‘fn1’: abc.c:8:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault } ^ 0xb5ea1f crash_signal

[Bug fortran/69930] fortran address sanitizer does not work with optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69930 --- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres --- *** Bug 69931 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug fortran/69931] fortran address sanitizer does not work with optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69931 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/69901] Iniitializing non-const global array variable from runtime const global variable does not copy all values properly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69901 --- Comment #2 from Piotr Nycz --- How to get information in which version it is fixed? What we discover ourselves: 4.9.1 - work 4.9.2 - fail 4.9.4 - work 5.2 - fail 6.0 (experimental) - work I need to know the newest stable version where it is

[Bug fortran/69931] New: fortran address sanitizer does not work with optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69931 Bug ID: 69931 Summary: fortran address sanitizer does not work with optimization Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/69930] New: fortran address sanitizer does not work with optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69930 Bug ID: 69930 Summary: fortran address sanitizer does not work with optimization Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/61156] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Internal compiler error for Fortran files when specifying a file instead of an include directory with -I

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61156 --- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle --- Fixed on trunk, back port in a few days.

[Bug fortran/61156] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Internal compiler error for Fortran files when specifying a file instead of an include directory with -I

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61156 --- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle --- Author: jvdelisle Date: Tue Feb 23 22:53:31 2016 New Revision: 233649 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233649=gcc=rev Log: 2016-02-23 Jerry DeLisle PR fortran/61156

[Bug fortran/69929] New: Internal compiler error GCC$ ATTRIBUTES STDCALL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69929 Bug ID: 69929 Summary: Internal compiler error GCC$ ATTRIBUTES STDCALL Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug fortran/60126] Internal compiler error with code using pointer reshaping (gfortran 4.8.2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60126 Harald Anlauf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gmx dot de --- Comment #2

[Bug target/69810] PowerPC64: unrecognizable insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69810 --- Comment #8 from David Edelsohn --- Author: dje Date: Tue Feb 23 22:28:23 2016 New Revision: 233648 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233648=gcc=rev Log: PR target/69810 * config/rs6000/rs6000.md (zero_extendqi2_dot): Convert from

[Bug libstdc++/69893] [6 Regression] Conflicting declarations in and

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69893 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/69925] No warning for uninitialized char * passing to function as const char *

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69925 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/10138] warn for uninitialized arrays passed as const* arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10138 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||developm...@faf-ltd.com ---

[Bug c++/69925] No warning for uninitialized char * passing to function as const char *

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69925 --- Comment #2 from Peter VARGA --- I expected honestly this answer but then almost every compiler warning can be "overruled" by a bad programmer. By the way I found out this behavior because I used it in STL and there

[Bug web/69928] incorrect reference to gcc-plugin.h in plugin documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69928 petensotium at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |minor

[Bug web/69928] New: incorrect reference to gcc-plugin.h in plugin documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69928 Bug ID: 69928 Summary: incorrect reference to gcc-plugin.h in plugin documentation Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/69564] [5/6 Regression] lto and/or C++ make scimark2 LU slower

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564 --- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill --- Created attachment 37774 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37774=edit loop inversion sketch This patch does loop inversion sufficient for scimark. It will break constexpr, but might be

[Bug c++/69564] [5/6 Regression] lto and/or C++ make scimark2 LU slower

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564 --- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) > Yeah, didn't try to figure out whether the C vs. C++ thing is a > regression. But I suspect the change to the C++ loop lowering. Yes, the relatively small

[Bug c/69927] New: Internal compiler error (Segmentation fault) when compiling FFmpeg 3.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69927 Bug ID: 69927 Summary: Internal compiler error (Segmentation fault) when compiling FFmpeg 3.0 Product: gcc Version: 4.9.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/69564] [5/6 Regression] lto and/or C++ make scimark2 LU slower

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69564 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug objc/69844] [6 Regression] Possibly bogus error: unknown type name in ObjC code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69844 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/69893] [6 Regression] Conflicting declarations in and

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69893 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Tue Feb 23 19:49:31 2016 New Revision: 233644 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233644=gcc=rev Log: libstdc++/69893 make work with C++11 PR libstdc++/69893 *

[Bug objc/69844] [6 Regression] Possibly bogus error: unknown type name in ObjC code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69844 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Feb 23 19:47:24 2016 New Revision: 233643 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233643=gcc=rev Log: PR objc/69844 * c-parser.c (c_parser_for_statement): Properly

[Bug fortran/69368] [6 Regression] spec2006 test case 416.gamess fails with the g++ 6.0 compiler starting with r232508

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368 --- Comment #81 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On February 23, 2016 4:20:48 PM GMT+01:00, "alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368 > >--- Comment #79 from alalaw01 at

[Bug ada/69926] GNAT bug detected -- Storage_Error stack overflow or erroneous memory access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69926 --- Comment #3 from Keith Godfrey --- Error seems to be caused by using an incorrect attribute (I used 'range when I meant 'last). This is not a priority to fix. I only reported it because it induced an internal error in the compiler

[Bug ada/69926] GNAT bug detected -- Storage_Error stack overflow or erroneous memory access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69926 --- Comment #2 from Keith Godfrey --- Source code attached. Here is code as a comment: muscles.ads package Muscles is type stretch is digits 5 range 0.0 .. 1.0; type spindle_t is record center: stretch := 0.0;

[Bug ada/69926] New: GNAT bug detected -- Storage_Error stack overflow or erroneous memory access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69926 Bug ID: 69926 Summary: GNAT bug detected -- Storage_Error stack overflow or erroneous memory access Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug ada/69926] GNAT bug detected -- Storage_Error stack overflow or erroneous memory access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69926 --- Comment #1 from Keith Godfrey --- Created attachment 37772 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37772=edit specification source file

[Bug c++/69924] gcc5.2 compile Error: std::basic_istream: no match for 'operator>>', while gcc 4.8 works

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69924 derrick at ca dot ibm.com changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |FIXED --- Comment #3 from

[Bug fortran/61156] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Internal compiler error for Fortran files when specifying a file instead of an include directory with -I

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61156 --- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #7) > With the patch in comment 6 the test gfortran.dg/include_6.f90 has to be > updated to > > --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/include_6.f90

[Bug fortran/69456] Namelist value with trailing sign is ignored without error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69456 --- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle --- Fixed on trunk. Will leave open for a bit to see if there is any fallout.

[Bug fortran/69910] ICE with NEWUNIT

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69910 --- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle --- Patch tested. It will be committed soon. Just need to go through the approval process

[Bug fortran/69456] Namelist value with trailing sign is ignored without error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69456 --- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle --- Author: jvdelisle Date: Tue Feb 23 18:38:31 2016 New Revision: 233641 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233641=gcc=rev Log: 2016-02-23 Jerry DeLisle PR

[Bug c/69759] __builtin_alloca and __builtin_alloca_with_align undocumented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69759 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Depends on|69780

[Bug c/69759] __builtin_alloca and __builtin_alloca_with_align undocumented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69759 Bug 69759 depends on bug 69780, which changed state. Bug 69780 Summary: [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on __builtin_alloca_with_align with small alignment https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69780 What|Removed

[Bug middle-end/69780] [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on __builtin_alloca_with_align with small alignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69780 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Blocks|

[Bug middle-end/69780] [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on __builtin_alloca_with_align with small alignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69780 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Tue Feb 23 18:09:37 2016 New Revision: 233640 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233640=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/69780 - [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on __builtin_alloca_with_align

[Bug c/69759] __builtin_alloca and __builtin_alloca_with_align undocumented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69759 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Tue Feb 23 18:09:37 2016 New Revision: 233640 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233640=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/69780 - [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on __builtin_alloca_with_align

[Bug preprocessor/69126] [6 regression] _Pragma does not apply if part of a macro

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69126 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug preprocessor/69543] [6/7 Regression] _Pragma does not apply within macro

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69543 --- Comment #6 from David Malcolm --- Author: dmalcolm Date: Tue Feb 23 17:44:28 2016 New Revision: 233638 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233638=gcc=rev Log: PR preprocessor/69126: avoid comparing ad-hoc and non-ad-hoc locations

[Bug preprocessor/69126] [6 regression] _Pragma does not apply if part of a macro

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69126 --- Comment #29 from David Malcolm --- Author: dmalcolm Date: Tue Feb 23 17:44:28 2016 New Revision: 233638 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233638=gcc=rev Log: PR preprocessor/69126: avoid comparing ad-hoc and non-ad-hoc locations

[Bug c/69918] [6 regression] gcc.dg/torture/builtin-integral-1.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69918 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug preprocessor/69543] [6/7 Regression] _Pragma does not apply within macro

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69543 --- Comment #5 from David Malcolm --- Author: dmalcolm Date: Tue Feb 23 17:39:16 2016 New Revision: 233637 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233637=gcc=rev Log: Add test coverage for _Pragma (PR preprocessor 69126, 69543, 69558) We had some

[Bug c/69558] [6/7 Regression] glib2 warning pragmas stopped working

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69558 --- Comment #14 from David Malcolm --- Author: dmalcolm Date: Tue Feb 23 17:39:16 2016 New Revision: 233637 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233637=gcc=rev Log: Add test coverage for _Pragma (PR preprocessor 69126, 69543, 69558) We had

[Bug preprocessor/69126] [6 regression] _Pragma does not apply if part of a macro

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69126 --- Comment #28 from David Malcolm --- Author: dmalcolm Date: Tue Feb 23 17:39:16 2016 New Revision: 233637 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233637=gcc=rev Log: Add test coverage for _Pragma (PR preprocessor 69126, 69543, 69558) We had

[Bug fortran/69368] [6 Regression] spec2006 test case 416.gamess fails with the g++ 6.0 compiler starting with r232508

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368 --- Comment #80 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to alalaw01 from comment #79) > Is the concern that we can't hide this behind an option, as that would > "drive people away from gfortran" ? If that's the case, can we hide it > behind an option

[Bug c++/69924] gcc5.2 compile Error: std::basic_istream: no match for 'operator>>', while gcc 4.8 works

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69924 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/69924] gcc5.2 compile Error: std::basic_istream: no match for 'operator>>', while gcc 4.8 works

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69924 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- I assume you're compiling as C++11?

[Bug c++/69925] No warning for uninitialized char * passing to function as const char *

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69925 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- There is another bug about this specific thing already. But note someone can do a const_cast and remove the const part and start assigning values to the array so it is not always considered as unitialized.

[Bug c++/69925] New: No warning for uninitialized char * passing to function as const char *

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69925 Bug ID: 69925 Summary: No warning for uninitialized char * passing to function as const char * Product: gcc Version: 4.9.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/69922] [6 Regression] Bogus -Wnonnull-compare for: ... ? static_cast<T*>(this) : nullptr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69922 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/69924] New: gcc5.2 compile Error: std::basic_istream: no match for 'operator>>', while gcc 4.8 works

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69924 Bug ID: 69924 Summary: gcc5.2 compile Error: std::basic_istream: no match for 'operator>>', while gcc 4.8 works Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/65963] Missed vectorization of loads strided with << when equivalent * succeeds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65963 alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug middle-end/66877] [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-over-widen-3-big-array.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times vect "vect_recog_over_widening_pattern: detected" 2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66877 alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug bootstrap/69709] [6 Regression] profiled bootstrap error on s390x-linux-gnu with r233194

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69709 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- FYI, profiledbootstrap works for me including Ada, see http://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/packages/gcc/6.0.0/0.12.fc24/data/logs/s390x/build.log

[Bug c++/69889] [6 Regression] ICE: in assign_temp, at function.c:961

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69889 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- This looks like a C++ FE bug to me, the operator() method is called with TREE_ADDRESSABLE argument by value, rather than by reference. Normally, when the C++ FE goes through build_over_call,

[Bug rtl-optimization/69891] wrong code with -mstringop-strategy=libcall @ i686

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69891 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c/69923] [6 regression] internal compiler error in cgraphunit.c when using -Wall

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69923 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c/69911] [6 Regression] Massive test failures on ia32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69911 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel at fahlgren dot se ---

[Bug libstdc++/69881] with gcc-6 of today building gcc-4.9 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69881 Bernd Edlinger changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/69923] [6 regression] internal compiler error in cgraphunit.c when using -Wall

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69923 --- Comment #1 from Daniel Fahlgren --- Created attachment 37770 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37770=edit Pre-processed test case

[Bug c/69923] New: [6 regression] internal compiler error in cgraphunit.c when using -Wall

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69923 Bug ID: 69923 Summary: [6 regression] internal compiler error in cgraphunit.c when using -Wall Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/69922] Bogus -Wnonnull-compare for: ... ? static_cast<T*>(this) : nullptr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69922 --- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Stephan Bergmann from comment #0) > With trunk@233631: > > > $ cat test.cc > > struct S2 { virtual ~S2(); }; > > struct S1 { > > virtual ~S1(); > > S2 * f(bool); > > }; > > struct

[Bug libstdc++/69881] with gcc-6 of today building gcc-4.9 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69881 --- Comment #23 from Bernd Edlinger --- Author: edlinger Date: Tue Feb 23 15:57:09 2016 New Revision: 233636 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233636=gcc=rev Log: 2016-02-23 Bernd Edlinger PR

[Bug c++/69922] Bogus -Wnonnull-compare for: ... ? static_cast<T*>(this) : nullptr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69922 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug tree-optimization/68963] [4.9/5/6 Regression] O3 vs. O2 discards part of loop and terminates early

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68963 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- Hmm, I think it's rather discover_iteration_bound_by_body_walk that merges the two estimates of 3 iterations from both arms even though those are not based off the same IV. OTOH the estimates itself assume

[Bug fortran/61156] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Internal compiler error for Fortran files when specifying a file instead of an include directory with -I

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61156 --- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres --- With the patch in comment 6 the test gfortran.dg/include_6.f90 has to be updated to --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/include_6.f90 2012-08-02 01:26:03.0 +0200 +++

[Bug c++/69922] New: Bogus -Wnonnull-compare for: ... ? static_cast<T*>(this) : nullptr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69922 Bug ID: 69922 Summary: Bogus -Wnonnull-compare for: ... ? static_cast(this) : nullptr Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/69368] [6 Regression] spec2006 test case 416.gamess fails with the g++ 6.0 compiler starting with r232508

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368 --- Comment #79 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #78) > > That would pessimize it too much IMHO. I'm not sure how to evaluate the pessimization, given it's thought to be a widespread pseudo-FORTRAN

[Bug middle-end/69920] [6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr42704.C -O2 -flto -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none (internal compiler error)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69920 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/69920] [6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr42704.C -O2 -flto -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none (internal compiler error)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69920 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||i?86-*-* Priority|P3

[Bug fortran/69368] [6 Regression] spec2006 test case 416.gamess fails with the g++ 6.0 compiler starting with r232508

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368 --- Comment #78 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368 > > --- Comment #77 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to

[Bug middle-end/69921] New: Switch OpenACC kernels number of gangs from "decide at run time" to "decide at compile time"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69921 Bug ID: 69921 Summary: Switch OpenACC kernels number of gangs from "decide at run time" to "decide at compile time" Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/69919] pool allocator and mem-stat race at program exit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69919 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Or maybe simply making mem_alloc_description::~mem_alloc_description () empty.

[Bug middle-end/69920] [6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr42704.C -O2 -flto -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none (internal compiler error)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69920 --- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1) > It may be caused by r233626. What do you mean by "may be?" I have just double checked that if I apply the patch to r233489 and run the test, it passes here on my

[Bug middle-end/69915] [6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV with -O -ftracer with broken backtrace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69915 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 37768 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37768=edit gcc6-pr69915.patch Untested fix.

[Bug c++/69736] [4.9/5/6 Regression] "error: too few arguments to function" in c++14 but not c++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69736 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/69368] [6 Regression] spec2006 test case 416.gamess fails with the g++ 6.0 compiler starting with r232508

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368 --- Comment #77 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #72) > > Patch as posted passed bootstrap & regtest. Adjusted according to > comments but not tested otherwise - please somebody throw at >

[Bug middle-end/69915] [6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV with -O -ftracer with broken backtrace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69915 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug middle-end/69919] pool allocator and mem-stat race at program exit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69919 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mliska at suse dot cz --- Comment #1

[Bug middle-end/69916] [openacc] ICE in single_succ_edge called from oacc_loop_xform_loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69916 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug middle-end/69916] [openacc] ICE in single_succ_edge called from oacc_loop_xform_loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69916 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

  1   2   >