[Bug c++/70470] std::min uninitialized value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70470 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug libstdc++/70459] regex segfault on long sequences

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70459 Tim Shen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug libstdc++/61582] C++11 regex memory corruption

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61582 Tim Shen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chaoskeeper at mail dot ru --- Comment #19

[Bug rtl-optimization/70471] New: Superfluous move instructions in floating-point instruction sequence

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70471 Bug ID: 70471 Summary: Superfluous move instructions in floating-point instruction sequence Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/66830] Problem with C++ unique symbols in plugins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66830 Carlos O'Donell changed: What|Removed |Added CC||carlos at redhat dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/70470] std::min uninitialized value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70470 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug other/70428] -fdebug-prefix-map did not support to remap sources with relative path

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70428 hongxu jia changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/47609] libstdc++ depends on libgcc_s.10.5 but gets linked to libgcc_s.10.4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47609 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug other/56811] [4.9/5/6 Regression] libbacktrace causes undefined symbol "_Unwind_GetIPInfo" on ia64-hpux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56811 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ossman at cendio dot se --- Comment

[Bug other/56811] [4.9/5/6 Regression] libbacktrace causes undefined symbol "_Unwind_GetIPInfo" on ia64-hpux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56811 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/64977] constexpr variable initialization by reference in lambda rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64977 --- Comment #2 from ytj000 at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1) > I'm not 100% sure this example is valid. It seems to me that the rejected > initializer "e" is invalid because it's not > a core constant expression.

[Bug c++/70470] New: std::min uninitialized value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70470 Bug ID: 70470 Summary: std::min uninitialized value Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/58646] ICE on a multidimensional VLA with an empty initializer list

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58646 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|ICE on a multidimensional |ICE on a multidimensional

[Bug rtl-optimization/55943] [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE in gen_reg_rtx

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55943 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/58646] ICE on a multidimensional VLA with a constant bound and empty initializer list

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58646 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|ICEs initializing VLAs |ICE on a multidimensional

[Bug tree-optimization/68953] [6 Regression] [graphite] Wrong code w/ -O[12] -floop-nest-optimize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68953 --- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to vries from comment #1) > Created attachment 38141 [details] > updated test-case > > Fails with -O1, passes with -O2. > > The problem is that this loop nest: > ... > for (zh = 0;

[Bug tree-optimization/68953] [6 Regression] [graphite] Wrong code w/ -O[12] -floop-nest-optimize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68953 --- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 38141 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38141=edit updated test-case Fails with -O1, passes with -O2. The problem is that this loop nest: ... for (zh = 0;

[Bug target/70464] [arch64] create a self hosting compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464 --- Comment #14 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de --- Is it related to this? https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00896.html

[Bug target/69890] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/chkp-* on x86_64-apple-darwin15

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69890 --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Well, tests were not supposed to check object_sizes pass capabilities. > But allowing misoptimized code means we don't test functionality > we wanted to test. I think these tests may use

[Bug fortran/70235] [4.9/5 Regression] Incorrect output with PF format

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING

[Bug fortran/70235] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Incorrect output with PF format

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70235 --- Comment #25 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: dominiq Date: Wed Mar 30 20:47:45 2016 New Revision: 234600 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234600=gcc=rev Log: 2016-03-30 Jerry DeLisle

[Bug testsuite/70469] New: multiple definition error in g++.dg/template/ptrmem30.C

ips-mti-elf/mips-mti-elf --with-build-sysroot=/scratch/gcc/nightly/install-mips-mti-elf/mips-mti-elf Thread model: single gcc version 6.0.0 20160330 (experimental) (GCC) COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-save-temps' '-v' '-T' 'mti32.ld' '-mplt' '-mips32r2' '-msynci' '-mabi=32' '-mfpxx' '-EB' /scratch/gcc/nigh

[Bug target/70464] [arch64] create a self hosting compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464 --- Comment #13 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de --- Now as i got a c++ compiler but no libstdc++ on the target, i try to use the gentoo tools to emerge (compile) the complete gcc on the target. Let it run over night whatever is needed. It is just a

[Bug c++/70468] New: ICE on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in emit_mem_initializers, at cp/init.c:1109

-languages=c,c++,lto --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap Thread model: posix gcc version 6.0.0 20160330 (experimental) [trunk revision 234546] (GCC) $ $ g++-4.7 -c small.cpp $ $ g++-trunk -c small.cpp small.cpp: In instantiation of ‘A< >::A() [with = S]’: small.cpp:22:3: re

[Bug c++/70201] Dump C++ template instantiations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70201 --- Comment #4 from Andrés Agustín Tiraboschi --- Created attachment 38139 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38139=edit Patch adding new flag in order to dump information about template instantiations. Hi, the attached patch

[Bug rtl-optimization/70461] [6 Regression] Performance regression after r234527

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70461 Vladimir Makarov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug target/70464] [arch64] create a self hosting compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464 --- Comment #12 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de --- I purged all temporary build data, added "--with-sysroot=/opt/aarch64-none-linux-gnu" to the configure line and rebuild again. The same error. /usr/aarch64-none-linux-gnu/usr/include/bits/stdio2.h:

[Bug rtl-optimization/70467] New: Useless "and [esp],-1" emitted on AND with uint64_t variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70467 Bug ID: 70467 Summary: Useless "and [esp],-1" emitted on AND with uint64_t variable Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/70465] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Poor code for x87 asm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70465 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vmakarov at redhat dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/70466] New: ICE on invalid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in tree check: expected constructor, have parm_decl in convert_like_real, at cp/call.c:6371

with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap Thread model: posix gcc version 6.0.0 20160330 (experimental) [trunk revision 234546] (GCC) $ $ g++-trunk small.cpp small.cpp:1:21: error: conflicting declaration ‘class T’ template

[Bug target/70464] [arch64] create a self hosting compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464 --- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab --- You should use --with-sysroot to configure your cross compiler.

[Bug target/70464] [arch64] create a self hosting compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464 --- Comment #10 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de --- Components to build the "aarch64-to-aarch64" gcc/g++: - sha1sum + filename f10c64e92d9c72ee428df3feaf349c4ecb2493bd binutils-2.25.tar.gz

[Bug testsuite/40625] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Errors in "make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS=plugin.exp"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40625 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED CC|

[BUG] Crash when demangling with libiberty

Hi, I have been given these e-mail addresses by Nick Clifton after reporting a bug on binutils here: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19877 . The bug is in libiberty, according to him. The bug boils down to this command (and objdump, and lldb) crashing: c++filt

[Bug target/70465] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Poor code for x87 asm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70465 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug c/70458] Function and function pointers that, when called, imply an optimization barrier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70458 --- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Wed, 30 Mar 2016, fw at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70458 > > --- Comment #3 from Florian Weimer --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from

[Bug target/70465] Poor code for x87 asm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70465 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/70460] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Miscompilation of glibc on i686-linux starting with r234101

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug target/70465] New: Poor code for x87 asm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70465 Bug ID: 70465 Summary: Poor code for x87 asm Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee:

[Bug target/70464] [arch64] create a self hosting compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464 --- Comment #9 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de --- This is the previous result as i tried this: make[4]: Leaving directory '/home/georg/intern/Dokumente/Entwicklung/rpi3/src/gcc/build-gcc/aarch64-armv8a-linux-gnueabi/libitm/testsuite' make[4]:

[Bug target/70464] [arch64] create a self hosting compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug testsuite/70356] gcc.target/i386/avx-vextractf128-256-5.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70356 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED URL|

[Bug target/70464] [arch64] create a self hosting compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464 --- Comment #7 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de --- (In reply to ktkachov from comment #5) > I usually use the target aarch64-none-linux-gnu, but aarch64-linux-gnu > should work too. > > Note that GCC requires a C++ compiler to build, so trying to

[Bug c++/70452] [5/6 Regression] Regression in C++ parsing performance between 4.9.3 and 5.3.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70452 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/70464] [arch64] create a self hosting compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464 --- Comment #6 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de --- Created attachment 38137 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38137=edit config log of the attempt to compile gcc on the raspberry pi3 This is the complete config.log of the attempt

[Bug testsuite/70356] gcc.target/i386/avx-vextractf128-256-5.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70356 --- Comment #8 from Rainer Orth --- Author: ro Date: Wed Mar 30 17:08:08 2016 New Revision: 234580 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234580=gcc=rev Log: Forward-port gcc.target/i386/avx-vextractf128-256-5.c from 5 branch (PR testsuite/70356)

[Bug testsuite/70356] gcc.target/i386/avx-vextractf128-256-5.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70356 --- Comment #7 from Rainer Orth --- Author: ro Date: Wed Mar 30 17:05:06 2016 New Revision: 234579 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234579=gcc=rev Log: Fix gcc.target/i386/avx-vextractf128-256-5.c with Solaris as (PR testsuite/70356)

[Bug other/70428] -fdebug-prefix-map did not support to remap sources with relative path

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70428 --- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Wed, 30 Mar 2016, hongxu.jia at windriver dot com wrote: > Do you mean the combination of using *"relative path" source to compile* > and *"absolute path" in -fdebug-prefix-map to remap*

[Bug rtl-optimization/70460] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Miscompilation of glibc on i686-linux starting with r234101

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460 --- Comment #7 from Bernd Schmidt --- I think you could/should also remove the code looking for REG_LABEL_OPERAND entirely, it seems irrelevant now. Otherwise looks good, so preapproved with that change.

[Bug target/70464] [arch64] create a self hosting compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464 --- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to georg from comment #0) > During our approach to get the raspberry pi3 and gentoo with an aarch64 > kernel and userland running i tried to cross compile a "native compiler for >

[Bug target/70464] [arch64] create a self hosting compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464 --- Comment #4 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de --- Pi_3 64_bit ~ # grep int64_t /opt/cross/aarch64-linux-gnu/include/stdint.h typedef long intint64_t; typedef long long int int64_t; typedef unsigned long int uint64_t;

[Bug c++/55635] Deallocation function ("operator delete") not called when destructor throws exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55635 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/70398] [6 Regression] gcc.dg/vect/slp-multitypes-9.c FAILs with -fno-tree-loop-optimize -fno-tree-ter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70398 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/70464] [arch64] create a self hosting compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464 --- Comment #3 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de --- I tried on the Raspberry pi 64 bit with the "C only gcc": Pi_3 64_bit ~ # cat main.c #include #include int main(int argc, char** argv) { printf("sizeof int64_t=%d\n",sizeof(int64_t));

[Bug rtl-optimization/70460] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Miscompilation of glibc on i686-linux starting with r234101

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- So, what about: --- gcc/ira.c.jj2016-03-21 10:12:32.0 +0100 +++ gcc/ira.c 2016-03-30 18:42:46.095091159 +0200 @@ -3885,18 +3885,27 @@ indirect_jump_optimize (void) {

[Bug target/70464] [arch64] create a self hosting compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464 --- Comment #2 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de --- I also tried various target triplets aarch64-linux-gnu and aarch64-armv8a-linux-gnueabi. Nut as far as i know aarch64-linux-gnu is right.

[Bug target/70464] [arch64] create a self hosting compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464 --- Comment #1 from ge...@schorsch-tech.de --- Created attachment 38136 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38136=edit script to "cross compile the native compiler"

[Bug target/70464] New: [arch64] create a self hosting compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70464 Bug ID: 70464 Summary: [arch64] create a self hosting compiler Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug target/69917] gcc.target/i386/chkp-hidden-def.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69917 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target|i386-pc-solaris2.* |i386-pc-solaris2.*

[Bug target/69917] gcc.target/i386/chkp-hidden-def.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69917 --- Comment #13 from Rainer Orth --- Author: ro Date: Wed Mar 30 16:25:06 2016 New Revision: 234578 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234578=gcc=rev Log: Respect transparent alias chains of assembler names (PR target/69917) Backport

[Bug testsuite/70364] gcc.target/i386/cleanup-[12].c don't align stack properly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70364 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/70439] Incorrect DRAP check in ix86_expand_epilogue

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70439 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/70449] [6 Regression] ICE with -Wall on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in pp_string, at pretty-print.c:928

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70449 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug rtl-optimization/70460] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Miscompilation of glibc on i686-linux starting with r234101

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Looking at pr46755.f, e.g. on x86_64 with -m32 -O -fpic I see in asmcons: (insn 3 2 60 2 (set (reg/f:SI 91 [ gotovar.7_6 ]) (plus:SI (reg:SI 87) (const:SI (unspec:SI [

[Bug rtl-optimization/70460] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Miscompilation of glibc on i686-linux starting with r234101

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460 --- Comment #4 from Bernd Schmidt --- Can we change it to just use SET_SRC (single_set (...))? I don't think the new pass was intended to handle anything new, only to disentangle the logic in ira. Alan mentioned gfortran.dg/pr46755.f as the

[Bug target/69614] [4.9/5 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-expensive-optimizations -fschedule-insns -mtpcs-leaf-frame -fira-algorithm=priority @ armv7a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614 --- Comment #28 from Vladimir Makarov --- Author: vmakarov Date: Wed Mar 30 15:58:10 2016 New Revision: 234577 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234577=gcc=rev Log: 2016-03-30 Vladimir Makarov Backported from

[Bug c++/70446] g++: internal compiler error: Killed (program cc1plus), probably related to vectors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70446 --- Comment #6 from ivanbili at gmail dot com --- Is there anything I can do to help?

[Bug rtl-optimization/70460] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Miscompilation of glibc on i686-linux starting with r234101

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Perhaps we can try to delegitimize the SET_SRC of def_insn or something similar to handle at least some -fPIC case where we'd want to turn indirect jumps into direct ones. Alan, do you have particular

[Bug libstdc++/70463] New: always use first element of mutex pool in src/c++11/shared_ptr.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70463 Bug ID: 70463 Summary: always use first element of mutex pool in src/c++11/shared_ptr.cc Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/70460] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Miscompilation of glibc on i686-linux starting with r234101

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/70462] New: Unnecessary "base object constructor" for final classes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70462 Bug ID: 70462 Summary: Unnecessary "base object constructor" for final classes Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement

[Bug target/70453] gcc generates invalid instruction vextractu64x4 (should be: vextracti64x4)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70453 Kirill Yukhin changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #38133|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c++/70444] Optimizer removes expression template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70444 --- Comment #4 from Hubert Matthews --- Doh, mea culpa. My apologies.

[Bug target/70454] --with-arch=native isn't applied to 32-bit x86 target library

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70454 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- By default, gcc uses the same -march=xxx for both -m32 and -m64 on x86-64 unless --with-arch-32= is used. There is no need for -march=i486 for -m32 on x86-64.

[Bug rtl-optimization/70461] New: [6 Regression] Performance regression after r234527

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70461 Bug ID: 70461 Summary: [6 Regression] Performance regression after r234527 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/70453] gcc generates invalid instruction vextractu64x4 (should be: vextracti64x4)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70453 --- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Kirill Yukhin from comment #3) > I am reg-testing trivial patch Ehm, the attached one is for PR70325.

[Bug rtl-optimization/70460] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Miscompilation of glibc on i686-linux starting with r234101

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[6 Regression] |[4.9/5/6 Regression]

[Bug rtl-optimization/70460] [6 Regression] Miscompilation of glibc on i686-linux starting with r234101

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Target Milestone|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/70460] New: [6 Regression] Miscompilation of glibc on i686-linux starting with r234101

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70460 Bug ID: 70460 Summary: [6 Regression] Miscompilation of glibc on i686-linux starting with r234101 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug target/70453] gcc generates invalid instruction vextractu64x4 (should be: vextracti64x4)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70453 --- Comment #3 from Kirill Yukhin --- Created attachment 38133 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38133=edit Proposed patch I am reg-testing trivial patch

[Bug c/69927] [4.9 Regression] Internal compiler error (Segmentation fault) when compiling FFmpeg 3.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69927 --- Comment #6 from jb999 at gmx dot de --- Bug still remaining when compiling ffmpeg 3.0.1

[Bug c++/70452] [5/6 Regression] Regression in C++ parsing performance between 4.9.3 and 5.3.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70452 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Indeed, started with r217664.

[Bug libstdc++/70459] regex segfault on long sequences

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70459 --- Comment #1 from chaoskeeper at mail dot ru --- Created attachment 38132 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38132=edit Minimal test case

[Bug libstdc++/70459] New: regex segfault on long sequences

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70459 Bug ID: 70459 Summary: regex segfault on long sequences Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++

[Bug target/70450] [6 Regression] Wrong code with -O0 and -O1.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70450 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/70453] gcc generates invalid instruction vextractu64x4 (should be: vextracti64x4)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70453 Kirill Yukhin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/70416] [SH]: error: 'asm' operand requires impossible reload when building ruby2.3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416 --- Comment #22 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #20) > > Interesting, so it seems the observation you made in the previous comment is > a result of somehow reverting the changes in PR 67391. The changes

[Bug c++/70452] [5/6 Regression] Regression in C++ parsing performance between 4.9.3 and 5.3.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70452 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug target/70450] [6 Regression] Wrong code with -O0 and -O1.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70450 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/70333] [5 Regression] Test miscompiled with -O0.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70333 Bug 70333 depends on bug 70450, which changed state. Bug 70450 Summary: [6 Regression] Wrong code with -O0 and -O1. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70450 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/70452] [5/6 Regression] Regression in C++ parsing performance between 4.9.3 and 5.3.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70452 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/70452] [5/6 Regression] Regression in C++ parsing performance between 4.9.3 and 5.3.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70452 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/70421] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with v16si vector and useless cast at -O -mavx512f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70421 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Mar 30 14:14:02 2016 New Revision: 234570 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234570=gcc=rev Log: PR target/70421 * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_vector_set): Fix

[Bug c++/70452] [5/6 Regression] Regression in C++ parsing performance between 4.9.3 and 5.3.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70452 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Hashtable lookups are from location/block remapping done. I _think_ that if all the copy_body stuff we do for constexpr evaluation would just "drop" locations for the copy we'd still be fine constexpr wise

[Bug target/70416] [SH]: error: 'asm' operand requires impossible reload when building ruby2.3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416 --- Comment #21 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #18) > > The GCC testsuite results look OK. However, CSiBE shows > > sum: 3342539 -> 3351695+9156 / +0.273924 % > > which is not so nice. For example, in

[Bug target/70421] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with v16si vector and useless cast at -O -mavx512f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70421 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Mar 30 14:06:51 2016 New Revision: 234569 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234569=gcc=rev Log: PR target/70421 * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_vector_set): Fix

[Bug target/70416] [SH]: error: 'asm' operand requires impossible reload when building ruby2.3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416 --- Comment #20 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #19) > This PR here seems to be a regression that has been caused by the patches > for PR 67391. Interesting, so it seems the observation you made in the

[Bug target/70416] [SH]: error: 'asm' operand requires impossible reload when building ruby2.3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70416 --- Comment #19 from Oleg Endo --- This PR here seems to be a regression that has been caused by the patches for PR 67391.

[Bug c/70458] Function and function pointers that, when called, imply an optimization barrier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70458 --- Comment #3 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > I also seriously question > > "The glibc consensus is to keep such calls." > > can you provide a reference to the relevant discussion?

[Bug c/70458] Function and function pointers that, when called, imply an optimization barrier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70458 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- I also seriously question "The glibc consensus is to keep such calls." can you provide a reference to the relevant discussion?

  1   2   3   >