[Bug bootstrap/63933] Build stage1 with -O2 during bootstrap if host compiler is a recent gcc version

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63933 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libgcc/78064] unwind-c.c never uses _Unwind_GetIPInfo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78064 --- Comment #2 from Jim Wilson --- The old configure.ac before the patch breaks this has GCC_TARGET_TEMPLATE(HAVE_GETIPINFO) which prevents the ifndef/endif from being added to config.in. But this apparently only works in the gcc dir, and I

[Bug libgcc/58710] HAVE_GETIPINFO is incorrectly set on Mac OS X 10.4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58710 Jim Wilson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug libgcc/78064] unwind-c.c never uses _Unwind_GetIPInfo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78064 Jim Wilson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug c++/78073] New: inherited initializer_list constructor is not accessible

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78073 Bug ID: 78073 Summary: inherited initializer_list constructor is not accessible Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/78033] Internal Compiler Error in enforce_single_undo_checkpoint

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78033 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- > > I may have a patch for this bug, and boy is it a REAL pain. > Patch posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-10/msg00156.html

[Bug libstdc++/63736] gcc generated program with segfault on atomic exchange when the atomic variable is a member of a struct allocated with make_shared

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63736 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/63736] gcc generated program with segfault on atomic exchange when the atomic variable is a member of a struct allocated with make_shared

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63736 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |libstdc++ --- Comment #5 from Andrew

[Bug c++/78039] [6 Regression] fails to compile glibc tests with invalid flexible array member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78039 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Keywords|

[Bug target/78056] [7 Regression] build failure on Power7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78056 --- Comment #11 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org --- For example, on a system that has as support for Power9, the auto-generated $GCC_BUILD/gcc/insn-flags.h file has #define HAVE_vector_ne_v16qi_p (TARGET_P9_VECTOR) When the compiler is built on

[Bug target/78056] [7 Regression] build failure on Power7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78056 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amodra at gmail dot com --- Comment #10

[Bug fortran/78033] Internal Compiler Error in enforce_single_undo_checkpoint

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78033 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- I may have a patch for this bug, and boy is it a REAL pain.

[Bug bootstrap/63933] Build stage1 with -O2 during bootstrap if host compiler is a recent gcc version

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63933 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement --- Comment #5 from Andrew

[Bug tree-optimization/77916] [6/7 Regression] ICE in verify_gimple_in_cfg: invalid (pointer) operands to plus/minus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77916 --- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt --- Fixed in trunk. Planning to backport to 5 and 6 in a couple of days after burn-in.

[Bug sanitizer/77823] [7 Regression] ICE: in ubsan_encode_value, at ubsan.c:137 with -fsanitize=undefined and vector types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77823 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug go/77910] [7 Regression] go: open zversion.go: no such file or directory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77910 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/77916] [6/7 Regression] ICE in verify_gimple_in_cfg: invalid (pointer) operands to plus/minus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77916 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7

[Bug c++/78032] [5/6/7 Regression] Incorrect code generated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78032 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c++/78003] [7 Regression] c++17: ICE in build_over_call, at cp/call.c:7847

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78003 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug libfortran/78055] [7 regression] Many new gfortran test failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78055 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED CC|

[Bug target/78057] [7 Regression]: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/bmi-{4,5,6}.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78057 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/78068] warning: implicit declaration of function ‘time’; did you mean ‘nice’? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78068 --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #2) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > > time declaration really is not present in the preprocessed source file. I > > can't seem to figure out why

[Bug other/78068] warning: implicit declaration of function ‘time’; did you mean ‘nice’? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78068 --- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > time declaration really is not present in the preprocessed source file. I > can't seem to figure out why it is not though. > > I doubt this is a GCC bug

[Bug tree-optimization/71947] [6 Regression] x ^ y not folded to 0 if x == y by DOM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71947 --- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Fri Oct 21 20:41:34 2016 New Revision: 241429 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241429=gcc=rev Log: * PR tree-optimization/71947 * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71947-4.c: Avoid

[Bug other/78068] warning: implicit declaration of function ‘time’; did you mean ‘nice’? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78068 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Component|c

[Bug c/38296] documentation: improve documentation of __builtin_constant_p()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38296 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/77656] 64-bit integral template parameter gets incorrectly sized as 32-bits

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77656 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/77656] 64-bit integral template parameter gets incorrectly sized as 32-bits

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77656 --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Fri Oct 21 19:45:45 2016 New Revision: 241425 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241425=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/77656 * pt.c (convert_template_argument): Call

[Bug libgcc/78067] liggcc2 calls count_leading_zero with 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78067 --- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger --- This happens with __floattisf and __floattidf in 64bit libgcc. But because a bsr $rsi,$rsi is used, apparently the result register is zero, when the input is zero and not completely undefined. Thus

[Bug tree-optimization/78072] [7 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_gimple failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78072 --- Comment #2 from Zhendong Su --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Most likely a dup of bug 78060. Yes, it looks like. But the reported C++ test case for 78060 has undefined behavior due to uninitialized variables. The ICE

[Bug tree-optimization/72785] [7 Regression] kernel build error since r236831

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72785 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #9) > Uh, that's a very strict interpretation. In particular, a function parameter > can never satisfy it, whereas many users of bcp rely on inlining turning >

[Bug middle-end/78071] -Os -ffast-math generates pow() for 1/(x*x)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78071 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/70777] x*x pessimised to pow(x,2) with -Og -ffast-math

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70777 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||colanderman at gmail dot com ---

[Bug tree-optimization/72785] [7 Regression] kernel build error since r236831

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72785 --- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Yes, it's a fairly strict interpretation, but I think it's the right one to be using in the absence of additional language around the semantics of b_c_p. In particular refer to c#6 in BZ38789.

[Bug middle-end/78071] -Os -ffast-math generates pow() for 1/(x*x)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78071 --- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse --- Dup of PR 70777? I can reproduce with gcc-6 but not with gcc-7.

[Bug tree-optimization/78072] [7 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_gimple failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78072 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Most likely a dup of bug 78060.

[Bug tree-optimization/78072] [7 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_gimple failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78072 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Target

[Bug libfortran/78055] [7 regression] Many new gfortran test failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78055 --- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle --- Rainer, please confirm the fix commited on trunk when you have time.

[Bug tree-optimization/72785] [7 Regression] kernel build error since r236831

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72785 --- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #8) > I've spent a goodly part of the morning pondering this BZ. While I think > the semantics of b_c_p are under/ill defined and they will continue to cause >

[Bug tree-optimization/78072] New: ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_gimple failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78072 Bug ID: 78072 Summary: ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_gimple failed Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/78071] -Os -ffast-math generates pow() for 1/(x*x)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78071 --- Comment #2 from Chris King --- Created attachment 39867 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39867=edit suboptimal output with -Os -ffast-math

[Bug tree-optimization/78071] -Os -ffast-math generates pow() for 1/(x*x)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78071 --- Comment #1 from Chris King --- Created attachment 39866 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39866=edit Expected output

[Bug tree-optimization/78071] New: -Os -ffast-math generates pow() for 1/(x*x)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78071 Bug ID: 78071 Summary: -Os -ffast-math generates pow() for 1/(x*x) Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug libfortran/78055] [7 regression] Many new gfortran test failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78055 --- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle --- Author: jvdelisle Date: Fri Oct 21 18:02:32 2016 New Revision: 241422 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241422=gcc=rev Log: 2016-10-21 Jerry DeLisle PR

[Bug tree-optimization/65752] Too strong optimizations int -> pointer casts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752 --- Comment #53 from Jeffrey A. Law --- And presumably walking forward/backward from the equivalency point to determine if an object is derived from or is used to derive a pointer is insufficient because the equivalency point and casting to/from

[Bug regression/78069] [7 Regression] -fprofile-update=atomic warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78069 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug tree-optimization/72785] [7 Regression] kernel build error since r236831

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72785 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at redhat dot com ---

[Bug web/78070] New: Suggestion for improvement for patch submission criteria

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78070 Bug ID: 78070 Summary: Suggestion for improvement for patch submission criteria Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/78005] [7 Regression] 172.mgrid and 450.soplex miscompare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78005 amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug preprocessor/71681] header.gcc file lookup is broken for -remap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71681 --- Comment #5 from Andris Pavenis --- Author: andris Date: Fri Oct 21 16:22:51 2016 New Revision: 241415 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241415=gcc=rev Log: 2016-10-21 Andris Pavenis PR

[Bug c++/77984] Invalid warning on templated operator= with -Weffc++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77984 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- No, but IMHO it should be (unless somebody fixes it, see PR 16166 and PR 16168 and PR 55837 and others).

[Bug preprocessor/71681] header.gcc file lookup is broken for -remap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71681 --- Comment #4 from Andris Pavenis --- Author: andris Date: Fri Oct 21 15:52:25 2016 New Revision: 241413 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241413=gcc=rev Log: 2016-10-21 Andris Pavenis PR

[Bug libfortran/78055] [7 regression] Many new gfortran test failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78055 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/77984] Invalid warning on templated operator= with -Weffc++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77984 --- Comment #3 from carlosmf.pt at gmail dot com --- I also have the same issue when using -Weffc++. Is efcc++ deprecated?

[Bug sanitizer/77982] deadlock in asan thread initialization/interception.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77982 --- Comment #5 from Kostya Serebryany --- (In reply to Pawel Sikora from comment #3) > (In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #2) > > Is -flto important here? > > Does this happen with clang? (does not happen for me) > > Does this happen if

[Bug target/78057] [7 Regression]: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/bmi-{4,5,6}.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78057 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Oct 21 15:39:25 2016 New Revision: 241411 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241411=gcc=rev Log: PR target/78057 * config/i386/i386.c: Include fold-const-call.h,

[Bug target/69663] [ARM] Implement overflow arithmetic standard names {u,}{add,sub,mul}v4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69663 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/66120] __builtin_add/sub_overflow for int32_t emit poor code on ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66120 Bug 66120 depends on bug 69663, which changed state. Bug 69663 Summary: [ARM] Implement overflow arithmetic standard names {u,}{add,sub,mul}v4 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69663 What|Removed

[Bug regression/78069] [7 Regression] -fprofile-update=atomic warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78069 David Edelsohn changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug regression/78069] New: [7 Regression] -fprofile-update=atomic warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78069 Bug ID: 78069 Summary: [7 Regression] -fprofile-update=atomic warning Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal

[Bug c++/78065] incorrect behavior with std::is_same with nested class in a template class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78065 --- Comment #5 from Jean-Michaël Celerier --- Okay, thanks !

[Bug c++/78065] incorrect behavior with std::is_same with nested class in a template class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78065 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/78068] New: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘time’; did you mean ‘nice’? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78068 Bug ID: 78068 Summary: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘time’; did you mean ‘nice’? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] Product: gcc Version: unknown Status:

[Bug c++/78065] incorrect behavior with std::is_same with nested class in a template class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78065 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- This shows that the alias declaration declares some_struct in the enclosing namespace: template struct foo { using sub = struct some_struct; }; some_struct s; All of EDG, GCC and Clang say that

[Bug c++/78065] incorrect behavior with std::is_same with nested class in a template class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78065 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Component|libstdc++ |c++ --- Comment #2 from Jonathan

[Bug target/78056] [7 Regression] build failure on Power7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78056 --- Comment #9 from David Edelsohn --- Any *one* of the BU_P9V_AV_P builtins will cause the failure. If those builtins are commented out of rs6000-builtins.def (with the appropriate changes to rs6000-c.c), bootstrap will succeed.

[Bug c++/70909] Libiberty Demangler segfaults (4)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug target/78057] [7 Regression]: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/bmi-{4,5,6}.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78057 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 39863 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39863=edit gcc7-i386-fold.patch And incremental patch to add a bunch of BMI/BMI2/TBM intrinsics folding.

[Bug c++/70909] Libiberty Demangler segfaults (4)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909 Matt Godbolt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matt at godbolt dot org --- Comment #4

[Bug fortran/69566] Failure of SELECT TYPE with unlimited polymorphic function result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69566 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libgcc/78067] liggcc2 calls count_leading_zero with 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78067 --- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger --- I think in the case of x86 longlong.h does not define COUNT_LEADING_ZEROS_0 but nevertheless count_leading_zero is defined to __builtin_clz and seems to return the correct result, but I don't know if that

[Bug fortran/69566] Failure of SELECT TYPE with unlimited polymorphic function result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69566 --- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas --- Author: pault Date: Fri Oct 21 12:50:56 2016 New Revision: 241403 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241403=gcc=rev Log: 2016-10-21 Paul Thomas PR fortran/69566 *

[Bug libgcc/78067] New: liggcc2 calls count_leading_zero with 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78067 Bug ID: 78067 Summary: liggcc2 calls count_leading_zero with 0 Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libgcc

[Bug ada/78066] New: Misleading error message about redundant Dynamic_Predicate incorrectly mentions "Valid"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78066 Bug ID: 78066 Summary: Misleading error message about redundant Dynamic_Predicate incorrectly mentions "Valid" Product: gcc Version: 6.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/78065] incorrect behavior with std::is_same with nested class in a template class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78065 --- Comment #1 from Jean-Michaël Celerier --- Here is the relevant bug report in clang bug tacker : https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30759

[Bug libstdc++/78065] New: incorrect behavior with std::is_same with nested class in a template class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78065 Bug ID: 78065 Summary: incorrect behavior with std::is_same with nested class in a template class Product: gcc Version: 6.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug other/71627] AVR error: unable to find a register to spill in class 'POINTER_X_REGS'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71627 --- Comment #4 from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj --- Author: saaadhu Date: Fri Oct 21 11:48:19 2016 New Revision: 241400 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241400=gcc=rev Log: Fix PR 71627 - unable to find a register to spill Tweak

[Bug target/78056] [7 Regression] build failure on Power7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78056 --- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- And indeed "GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.27.51.20161021" is fine.

[Bug c++/77446] Suspicious "non-constant condition for static assertion" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77446 --- Comment #3 from Tony E Lewis --- Great to see this will now be covered by a testcase. Thanks very much for all work.

[Bug target/78056] [7 Regression] build failure on Power7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78056 --- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6) > It builds fine for me on gcc110. Markus, what are you doing differently? > I use recent binutils, maybe that is it? Could be: GNU ld (GNU Binutils)

[Bug target/78056] [7 Regression] build failure on Power7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78056 --- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool --- It builds fine for me on gcc110. Markus, what are you doing differently? I use recent binutils, maybe that is it?

[Bug target/78057] [7 Regression]: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/bmi-{4,5,6}.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78057 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #39855|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug libgcc/78064] unwind-c.c never users _Unwind_GetIPInfo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78064 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libgcc/78064] New: unwind-c.c never users _Unwind_GetIPInfo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78064 Bug ID: 78064 Summary: unwind-c.c never users _Unwind_GetIPInfo Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libgcc

[Bug fortran/78062] sinus and cosinus fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78062 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug other/78063] New: libbacktrace fails to handle cross CU DW_AT_abstract_origin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78063 Bug ID: 78063 Summary: libbacktrace fails to handle cross CU DW_AT_abstract_origin Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/78062] New: sinus and cosinus fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78062 Bug ID: 78062 Summary: sinus and cosinus fails Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug tree-optimization/78061] [7 Regression] -O3 causes "Error: definition in block 117 does not dominate use in block 164"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78061 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

[Bug tree-optimization/78061] [7 Regression] -O3 causes "Error: definition in block 117 does not dominate use in block 164"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78061 --- Comment #1 from David Binderman --- This Fortran code seems to be the results of creduce and it generates the same compiler error. SUBROUTINE SSYMM(C) REAL C(LDC,*) LOGICAL LSAME LOGICAL UPPER IF (LSAME) THEN

[Bug tree-optimization/78060] [7 Regression] -O3 causes "error: type mismatch in binary expression"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78060 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/78061] [7 Regression] -O3 causes "Error: definition in block 117 does not dominate use in block 164"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78061 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/78061] New: -O3 causes "Error: definition in block 117 does not dominate use in block 164"

The attached Fortran code, when compiled by gfortran dated 20161021, and compiler flag -O3, does this: $ ../results/bin/gfortran -c -O3 bug315.f bug315.f:190:0: SUBROUTINE SSYMM(SIDE,UPLO,M,N,ALPHA,A,LDA,B,LDB,BETA,C,LDC) Error: definition in block 117 does not dominate use in block 164

[Bug c++/78060] -O3 causes "error: type mismatch in binary expression"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78060 --- Comment #1 from David Binderman --- Created attachment 39860 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39860=edit C++ source code Source code after creduce.

[Bug ada/77986] Re-building from the toplevel doesn't work when Ada changes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77986 --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou --- > Now I have > > make[3]: Entering directory > `/home/abuild/rguenther/obj-early-lto-debug-g/gcc/ada/tools' > ../../gnatbind -I- -I../rts -I. > -I/space/rguenther/src/svn/early-lto-debug/gcc/ada -o

[Bug target/78056] [7 Regression] build failure on Power7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78056 --- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool --- So it seems rs6000_overloaded_builtin_p doesn't return true for some builtin where it should? Kelvin?

[Bug rtl-optimization/78041] Wrong code on ARMv7 with -mthumb -mfpu=neon-fp16 -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78041 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #13

[Bug c++/78060] New: -O3 causes "error: type mismatch in binary expression"

iority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 39859 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39859=edit C++ source code The attached source code, when compiled by gcc d

[Bug ada/77986] Re-building from the toplevel doesn't work when Ada changes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77986 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Now I have make[3]: Entering directory `/home/abuild/rguenther/obj-early-lto-debug-g/gcc/ada/tools' ../../gnatbind -I- -I../rts -I. -I/space/rguenther/src/svn/early-lto-debug/gcc/ada -o b_gnatm.adb

[Bug rtl-optimization/78041] Wrong code on ARMv7 with -mthumb -mfpu=neon-fp16 -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78041 Bernd Edlinger changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wdijkstr at arm dot com ---

[Bug sanitizer/77982] deadlock in asan thread initialization/interception.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77982 --- Comment #4 from Pawel Sikora --- (In reply to Pawel Sikora from comment #3) > (In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #2) > > Is -flto important here? > > Does this happen with clang? (does not happen for me) > > Does this happen if you

  1   2   >