[Bug target/81753] Building of cross-compiler for powerpc-darwin7 is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81753 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/81753] Building of cross-compiler for powerpc-darwin7 is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81753 --- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool --- rs6000-p8swap.o as well :-)

[Bug tree-optimization/81723] [7/8 Regression] fortran build doesn't terminate on 64bit targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81723 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.2

[Bug target/81753] Building of cross-compiler for powerpc-darwin7 is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81753 --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- Apparently it's not enough: g++ -no-pie -O0 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual

[Bug c++/81764] New: Visibility for explicitly instantiated template class get warned if it was implicitly instantiated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81764 Bug ID: 81764 Summary: Visibility for explicitly instantiated template class get warned if it was implicitly instantiated Product: gcc Version: 7.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/81763] Issues with 32bit x86 apps on GCC 7.1+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763 --- Comment #2 from Mike Lothian --- Sorry I should have been more clear, this is LLVM trunk I'm using these flags: CFLAGS="-O2 -march=native -pipe" CXXFLAGS="-O2 -march=native -pipe" LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1 -Wl,--hash-style=gnu -Wl,--as-needed"

[Bug target/81763] Issues with 32bit x86 apps on GCC 7.1+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- There are some known issues with older versions of LLVM, maybe you are using too older version of LLVM. That is some versions of LLVM have undefined C++ code in them. GCC 7.1 is more aggressive of

[Bug c/81763] New: Issues with 32bit x86 apps on GCC 7.1+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763 Bug ID: 81763 Summary: Issues with 32bit x86 apps on GCC 7.1+ Product: gcc Version: 7.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug target/81593] Optimize PowerPC vector set from vector extract

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81593 --- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner --- Author: meissner Date: Mon Aug 7 23:51:27 2017 New Revision: 250936 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250936=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-08-07 Michael Meissner PR

[Bug c++/81668] LTO ODR warnings are not helpful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81668 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug fortran/52387] I/O output of write after nonadvancing read

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52387 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED --- Comment #14 from Eric

[Bug lto/41565] -m32 causes an ICE when the object files were compiled with 64bit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41565 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|2009-10-04

[Bug fortran/81758] [OOP] Broken vtab

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758 --- Comment #2 from DIL --- No, at this point I do not, unfortunately. These OOP bugs tend to show up at higher levels, so it is not always clear how to reduce it to something small. I will try to reduce it to something smaller, but not sure how

[Bug c++/81762] New: errors defining attribute target overloads of the same function template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81762 Bug ID: 81762 Summary: errors defining attribute target overloads of the same function template Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/81721] precompiled header : internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81721 Juro Bystricky changed: What|Removed |Added CC||juro.bystricky at intel dot com ---

[Bug c++/81721] precompiled header : internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81721 --- Comment #1 from Juro Bystricky --- This patch fixes the issue: http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2017-August/140486.html

[Bug c++/81761] New: assembler error on __func__ et al. on attribute target overloads

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81761 Bug ID: 81761 Summary: assembler error on __func__ et al. on attribute target overloads Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/81759] Improve data tracking for _pext_u64 and __builtin_ffsll

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81759 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Target|

[Bug c++/81760] New: attribute target uses the wrong default function argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81760 Bug ID: 81760 Summary: attribute target uses the wrong default function argument Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/81759] New: Improve data tracking for _pext_u64 and __builtin_ffsll

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81759 Bug ID: 81759 Summary: Improve data tracking for _pext_u64 and __builtin_ffsll Product: gcc Version: 7.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/81758] [OOP] Broken vtab

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libfortran/80850] Sourced allocate() fails to allocate a pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80850 --- Comment #11 from DIL --- The additional problem you observe with gfortran/7.1 described in the comment "2017-05-26 22:43:21 UTC" seems to be another gfortran compiler bug introduced in GCC/7.0. I have just filed a bug report for it (#81758).

[Bug libstdc++/81751] __basic_file::sync() may flush _all_ files

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81751 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/81757] function reference on nonnull and noexcept

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81757 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid

[Bug target/72804] Poor code gen with -mvsx-timode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72804 --- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner --- I'm testing a patch. The root cause is that the vsx_le_permute_*, vsx_le_perm_load_* and vsx_le_perm_store_* patterns do not support the TImode values in integer registers and it is these patterns that LRA

[Bug fortran/81758] New: [OOP] Broken vtab

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758 Bug ID: 81758 Summary: [OOP] Broken vtab Product: gcc Version: 7.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran Assignee:

[Bug rtl-optimization/81625] GCC v4.7 ... v8 is bloating code by > 25% compared to v3.4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81625 --- Comment #5 from Fredrik Hederstierna --- I tried build several AVR toolchains from 3.4.6 to 7.1.0 and I can confirm that code size increases as described. I suspect for AVR this might start already

[Bug target/81755] Building of cross compiler for powerpc-wrs-vxworksmils is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81755 Olivier Hainque changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/81755] Building of cross compiler for powerpc-wrs-vxworksmils is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81755 --- Comment #2 from Olivier Hainque --- Author: hainque Date: Mon Aug 7 20:13:53 2017 New Revision: 250931 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250931=gcc=rev Log: Olivier Hainque PR target/81755 *

[Bug tree-optimization/81741] Misoptimisation : replacing a constant field read access by a function call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81741 --- Comment #2 from Patrick Pelissier --- I can reproduce the behavior without __builtin_constant_p by removing it from the M_ASSUME macro : # define M_ASSUME(x)\ ( (x) ?

[Bug target/81755] Building of cross compiler for powerpc-wrs-vxworksmils is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81755 Olivier Hainque changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/81116] Last character of allocatable-length string reset to blank in an assigment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81116 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug c++/81359] [7/8 Regression] bogus error: constructor required before non-static data member for ‘Foo::Bar::test’ has been parsed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81359 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/81525] [7/8 Regression] Invalid codegen with constexpr variable template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81525 --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill --- The bug is that GCC is replacing the auto with the implicit template argument of the generic lambda.

[Bug c++/81525] [7/8 Regression] Invalid codegen with constexpr variable template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81525 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/81757] New: function reference on nonnull and noexcept

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81757 Bug ID: 81757 Summary: function reference on nonnull and noexcept Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c/69389] bit field incompatible with OpenMP atomic update

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69389 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Aug 7 18:34:29 2017 New Revision: 250929 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250929=gcc=rev Log: PR c/69389 * gimplify.c (goa_stabilize_expr): Handle

[Bug fortran/67493] -fcheck=recursive not thread aware

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67493 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/78266] broken openacc loop partitioning on nvptx offloading targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/78266] broken openacc loop partitioning on nvptx offloading targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266 --- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries --- patch with test-suite (In reply to cesar from comment #8) > Because num_gangs exceeds largest unsigned value that can be represented by > the induction variable. I think what you're trying to say here is

[Bug middle-end/78266] broken openacc loop partitioning on nvptx offloading targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266 --- Comment #8 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org --- Because num_gangs exceeds largest unsigned value that can be represented by the induction variable.

[Bug middle-end/78266] broken openacc loop partitioning on nvptx offloading targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266 --- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to cesar from comment #6) > I'm not sure that solution is correct. Why ?

[Bug middle-end/78266] broken openacc loop partitioning on nvptx offloading targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266 --- Comment #6 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org --- I'm not sure that solution is correct. A better solution would be to report an error/warning stating that num_workers exceeds the size of the induction variable. Also, in the case that user

[Bug target/81753] Building of cross-compiler for powerpc-darwin7 is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81753 acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/78266] broken openacc loop partitioning on nvptx offloading targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266 --- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries --- Author: vries Date: Mon Aug 7 17:06:11 2017 New Revision: 250925 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250925=gcc=rev Log: Fix diff_type in expand_oacc_for char iter_type 2017-08-07 Tom de Vries

[Bug c/81756] New: type attributes silently ignored on type declarations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81756 Bug ID: 81756 Summary: type attributes silently ignored on type declarations Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/81755] New: Building of cross compiler for powerpc-wrs-vxworksmils is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81755 Bug ID: 81755 Summary: Building of cross compiler for powerpc-wrs-vxworksmils is broken Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/68829] [5/6/7/8 Regression] Segfaults with -Ofast due to large array on stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68829 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/68829] [5/6/7/8 Regression] Segfaults with -Ofast due to large array on stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68829 --- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig --- It is now possible to use -fmax-stack-var-size with -Ofast. Closing.

[Bug fortran/68829] [5/6/7/8 Regression] Segfaults with -Ofast due to large array on stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68829 Bug 68829 depends on bug 81701, which changed state. Bug 81701 Summary: -fstack-arrays hehavior does not match documentation https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81701 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/81701] -fstack-arrays hehavior does not match documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81701 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/68829] [5/6/7/8 Regression] Segfaults with -Ofast due to large array on stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68829 --- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Mon Aug 7 16:43:05 2017 New Revision: 250923 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250923=gcc=rev Log: 2017-08-07 Thomas Koenig PR fortran/68829

[Bug fortran/81701] -fstack-arrays hehavior does not match documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81701 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Mon Aug 7 16:43:05 2017 New Revision: 250923 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250923=gcc=rev Log: 2017-08-07 Thomas Koenig PR fortran/68829

[Bug target/81754] New: Building of cross compiler avr-elf is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81754 Bug ID: 81754 Summary: Building of cross compiler avr-elf is broken Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/81753] New: Building of cross-compiler for powerpc-darwin7 is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81753 Bug ID: 81753 Summary: Building of cross-compiler for powerpc-darwin7 is broken Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/81749] std::align: runtime error: negation of 8 cannot be represented in type 'size_t'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749 --- Comment #10 from Max Bruckner --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9) > (In reply to Max Bruckner from comment #8) > > Nevertheless I disagree that there is no "overflow" or "underflow". It's a > > question of how you define the two

[Bug libstdc++/81749] std::align: runtime error: negation of 8 cannot be represented in type 'size_t'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Max Bruckner from comment #8) > Nevertheless I disagree that there is no "overflow" or "underflow". It's a > question of how you define the two words, in a way, but being defined > doesn't make

[Bug libgomp/81752] New: num_gangs(65536) converted to 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81752 Bug ID: 81752 Summary: num_gangs(65536) converted to 0 Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libgomp

[Bug c/69389] bit field incompatible with OpenMP atomic update

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69389 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug libstdc++/81749] std::align: runtime error: negation of 8 cannot be represented in type 'size_t'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749 --- Comment #8 from Max Bruckner --- I understand how unsigned integers work and that they are defined by the standard to have modular arithmetic. In this case I just didn't add 1 and 1 together I guess. Nevertheless I disagree that there is no

[Bug target/81709] __attribute__((interrupt)) should handle SSE registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81709 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/46932] Inefficient code sequence to access local variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46932 --- Comment #8 from Wilco --- Author: wilco Date: Mon Aug 7 13:56:02 2017 New Revision: 250918 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250918=gcc=rev Log: Fix unresolved in gcc.dg/pr46932.c Build only if pre-increment is supported. Given there

[Bug libstdc++/81751] New: __basic_file::sync() may flush _all_ files

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81751 Bug ID: 81751 Summary: __basic_file::sync() may flush _all_ files Product: gcc Version: 7.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/81627] [8 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3: in check_loop_closed_ssa_use, at tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:707

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81627 amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/81620] [8 Regression] ICE in is_inv_store_elimination_chain, at tree-predcom.c:1651 with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81620 amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug middle-end/81408] Lots of new -Wunsafe-loop-optimizations warnings with 7 compared to 6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81408 amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug target/81414] [6/7 Regression] ICE in fma steering on AArch64/cortex-a57

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81414 amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug middle-end/80815] wrong code because of broken runtime alias check in vectorizer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80815 amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug preprocessor/81745] missing warning with -pedantic when a C file does not end with a newline character

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81745 --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #9) > Changed back to INVALID (there's a bug in bugzilla, which changes INVALID to > FIXED after a reload + a new comment). Sounds like something your browser

[Bug target/81736] Unnecessary save and restore frame pointer with -fno-omit-frame-pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81736 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/81743] int __attribute__ ((target("arch=westmere"))) is compiled incorrectly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81743 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/81743] int __attribute__ ((target("arch=westmere"))) is compiled incorrectly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81743 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.0

[Bug c++/81668] LTO ODR warnings are not helpful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81668 --- Comment #5 from sgunderson at bigfoot dot com --- (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #3) > I don't see any bug, all relevant information is in the warnings. My point is that all relevant information _isn't_ in the warnings. In

[Bug tree-optimization/78972] [5/6/7/8 Regression] poor x86 simd instruction scheduling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78972 --- Comment #11 from Bernd Schmidt --- For reference: patch and discussion here. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg01058.html

[Bug middle-end/80283] [5/6/7/8 Regression] bad SIMD register allocation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80283 --- Comment #15 from Bernd Schmidt --- For reference: patch and discussion here. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg01058.html

[Bug target/81736] Unnecessary save and restore frame pointer with -fno-omit-frame-pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81736 --- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: hjl Date: Mon Aug 7 11:49:10 2017 New Revision: 250916 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250916=gcc=rev Log: i386: Don't use frame pointer without stack access When there is no stack

[Bug target/81743] int __attribute__ ((target("arch=westmere"))) is compiled incorrectly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81743 --- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: hjl Date: Mon Aug 7 11:47:22 2017 New Revision: 250915 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250915=gcc=rev Log: i386: Set priority to P_AES for Westmere The difference between Nehalem and

[Bug libstdc++/81749] std::align: runtime error: negation of 8 cannot be represented in type 'size_t'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- Strictly speaking, unsigned overflow doesn't even exist. "Integer overflow" is only something that happens for signed integers. Operations on unsigned integers have defined behaviour, they can't

[Bug hsa/81713] BIT_FIELD_REF produced by Brig FE do not pass new verification

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81713 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/81749] std::align: runtime error: negation of 8 cannot be represented in type 'size_t'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749 --- Comment #6 from Max Bruckner --- Oh, you're right, unsigned overflow is defined of course. I guess I should report a bug with UBSan then to get a suppression included for libstdc++.

[Bug tree-optimization/81744] [8 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed, at tree-ssa.c:1186

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81744 --- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > (In reply to amker from comment #4) > > So with below code in prepare_finalizers_chain: > > tree fini, niters = number_of_latch_executions (loop); >

[Bug tree-optimization/81744] [8 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed, at tree-ssa.c:1186

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81744 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to amker from comment #4) > So with below code in prepare_finalizers_chain: > tree fini, niters = number_of_latch_executions (loop); > //... > niters = copy_node (niters); > niters =

[Bug tree-optimization/81744] [8 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed, at tree-ssa.c:1186

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81744 --- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- So with below code in prepare_finalizers_chain: tree fini, niters = number_of_latch_executions (loop); //... niters = copy_node (niters); niters = force_gimple_operand (niters, , true,

[Bug middle-end/78266] broken openacc loop partitioning on nvptx offloading targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266 --- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries --- F.i., we generate: ... _41 = GOACC_DIM_SIZE (0); _29 = (signed char) _41; ... where _41 is 256. When folding in forwprop2, we fold _29 to '0': ... gimple_simplified to _29 = 0; ...

[Bug libstdc++/81749] std::align: runtime error: negation of 8 cannot be represented in type 'size_t'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/78266] broken openacc loop partitioning on nvptx offloading targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266 --- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries --- Minimal example: ... int main () { #pragma acc parallel num_gangs(256) { #pragma acc loop gang for (unsigned char j = 0; j < 5; j++) ; } return 0; } ... We generate an unconditional

[Bug libstdc++/81749] std::align: runtime error: negation of 8 cannot be represented in type 'size_t'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug libstdc++/81749] std::align: runtime error: negation of 8 cannot be represented in type 'size_t'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749 --- Comment #3 from Max Bruckner --- Created attachment 41946 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41946=edit Suppression file as a workaround. Add to UBSAN_OPTIONS=supressions=...

[Bug libstdc++/81749] std::align: runtime error: negation of 8 cannot be represented in type 'size_t'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749 --- Comment #2 from Max Bruckner --- This is on x86_64

[Bug libstdc++/81749] std::align: runtime error: negation of 8 cannot be represented in type 'size_t'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749 --- Comment #1 from Max Bruckner --- Created attachment 41945 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41945=edit Makefile to reproduce the error

[Bug libstdc++/81749] New: std::align: runtime error: negation of 8 cannot be represented in type 'size_t'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749 Bug ID: 81749 Summary: std::align: runtime error: negation of 8 cannot be represented in type 'size_t' Product: gcc Version: 7.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/78266] broken openacc loop partitioning on nvptx offloading targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78266 --- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries --- Reproduced it by mapping the outer loop to gang, and setting num_gangs to 640.

[Bug middle-end/81737] [8 Regression] 164.gzip in SPEC CPU 2000 failed to build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81737 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug middle-end/81737] [8 Regression] 164.gzip in SPEC CPU 2000 failed to build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81737 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/81737] [8 Regression] 164.gzip in SPEC CPU 2000 failed to build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81737 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Mon Aug 7 09:13:02 2017 New Revision: 250912 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250912=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/81737 * fold-const.c (fold_indirect_ref_1): Check

[Bug fortran/81748] New: extensible types non-conforming behaviour

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81748 Bug ID: 81748 Summary: extensible types non-conforming behaviour Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug testsuite/80759] gcc.target/x86_64/abi/ms-sysv FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759 --- Comment #63 from Daniel Santos --- Created attachment 41943 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41943=edit test patch for uncaught exception in generator (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #62) > Created

[Bug middle-end/81698] expand_case uses wrong edge as default edge

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81698 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Aug 7 08:29:21 2017 New Revision: 250909 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250909=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/81698 * stmt.c (emit_case_dispatch_table): Add

[Bug c++/81722] [7/8 Regression] memory hog building c++ on i686-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81722 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/81744] [8 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed, at tree-ssa.c:1186

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81744 amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot

  1   2   >