[Bug c++/82115] New: ICE on (valid) C++11 code: Segmentation fault signal terminated program cc1plus

/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/8.0.0/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto --prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap Thread model: posix gcc version 8.0.0 20170905

[Bug c/82105] unexpected padding in a struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82105 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Dudu from comment #7) > By the way: if you use long instead of int - you get no padding between x > and y, so the size of the struct is smaller!!! > > typedef struct { > unsigned long

[Bug c/82105] unexpected padding in a struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82105 --- Comment #7 from Dudu --- By the way: if you use long instead of int - you get no padding between x and y, so the size of the struct is smaller!!! typedef struct { unsigned long x:16; unsigned long y:17; unsigned

[Bug testsuite/82114] New: gcc.dg/gimplefe-14.c for bare metal and argc is 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82114 Bug ID: 82114 Summary: gcc.dg/gimplefe-14.c for bare metal and argc is 0 Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/64910] tree reassociation results in poor code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64910 --- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Wed Sep 6 05:20:25 2017 New Revision: 251751 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251751=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/64910 * tree-ssa-reassoc.c (reassociate_bb):

[Bug c++/82113] New: RVO isn't applied to base class constructor call in C++17

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82113 Bug ID: 82113 Summary: RVO isn't applied to base class constructor call in C++17 Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/82112] New: internal compiler error: in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2262

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82112 Bug ID: 82112 Summary: internal compiler error: in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2262 Product: gcc Version: 7.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/71660] [5/6/7/8 regression] alignment of std::atomic<8 byte primitive type> (long long, double) is wrong on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71660 --- Comment #12 from Thiago Macieira --- Another problem is that we've now had a couple of years with this issue, so it's probably worse to make a change again.

[Bug target/81907] memset called when it does not need to be; -mtune=cortex-a9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81907 dongkyun.s at samsung dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug rtl-optimization/82111] kcoreaddons-5.37.0: desktopfileparser.cpp miscompiled in dbr pass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82111 --- Comment #2 from John David Anglin --- Created attachment 42134 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42134=edit Dump from dbr pass

[Bug rtl-optimization/82111] kcoreaddons-5.37.0: desktopfileparser.cpp miscompiled in dbr pass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82111 --- Comment #1 from John David Anglin --- Created attachment 42133 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42133=edit Dump from barriers

[Bug rtl-optimization/82111] New: kcoreaddons-5.37.0: desktopfileparser.cpp miscompiled in dbr pass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82111 Bug ID: 82111 Summary: kcoreaddons-5.37.0: desktopfileparser.cpp miscompiled in dbr pass Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/82110] New: Concept for default constructing works with new T, not with new T[1]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82110 Bug ID: 82110 Summary: Concept for default constructing works with new T, not with new T[1] Product: gcc Version: c++-concepts Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/81503] [8 Regression] Wrong code at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/81503] [8 Regression] Wrong code at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503 --- Comment #20 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Tue Sep 5 21:52:01 2017 New Revision: 251745 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251745=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-09-05 Bill Schmidt Backport

[Bug tree-optimization/81503] [8 Regression] Wrong code at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503 --- Comment #19 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Tue Sep 5 21:50:38 2017 New Revision: 251744 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251744=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-09-05 Bill Schmidt Backport

[Bug tree-optimization/81503] [8 Regression] Wrong code at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81503 --- Comment #18 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Tue Sep 5 21:49:01 2017 New Revision: 251743 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251743=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-09-05 Bill Schmidt Backport

[Bug target/65146] alignment of _Atomic structure member is not correct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146 --- Comment #8 from Peter Cordes --- BTW, all of my proposals are really ABI changes, even if struct layout stays the same. All code has to agree on which objects are lock-free or not, and whether they need to check alignment before using an

[Bug target/82048] GCC bootstrap fails in stage1 on sparc-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82048 --- Comment #5 from Aaro Koskinen --- > Is there any workaround other than downgrading to glibc 2.24 on SPARC? If you always re-install the 64-bit glibc build after 32-bit one, that should restore the correct version of long-double.h.

[Bug middle-end/81768] [8 Regression] error: control flow in the middle of basic block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81768 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Sep 5 21:32:35 2017 New Revision: 251742 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251742=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/81768 * omp-low.c (lower_omp_for): Recompute tree

[Bug libstdc++/71660] [5/6/7/8 regression] alignment of std::atomic<8 byte primitive type> (long long, double) is wrong on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71660 --- Comment #11 from Peter Cordes --- (In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #10) > Actually, PR 65146 points out that the problem is not efficiency but > correctness. An under-aligned type could cross a cacheline boundary and thus > fail to

[Bug middle-end/81768] [8 Regression] error: control flow in the middle of basic block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81768 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Sep 5 21:31:39 2017 New Revision: 251741 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251741=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/81768 * omp-expand.c (expand_omp_simd): Force second

[Bug middle-end/82095] [8 Regression] ICE in tree_nop_conversion at tree.c:11793 on ppc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82095 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.0 Summary|ICE in

[Bug c++/82053] [8 Regression] ICE on invalid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82053 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/81833] [7/8 Regression] PowerPC: VSX: Miscompiles ffmpeg's scalarproduct_int16_vsx at -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81833 --- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Tue Sep 5 19:41:55 2017 New Revision: 251723 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251723=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-09-05 Bill Schmidt PR

[Bug sanitizer/82109] New: False positive when using pthread_cleanup_push() and pthread_cancel()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82109 Bug ID: 82109 Summary: False positive when using pthread_cleanup_push() and pthread_cancel() Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/78015] pthread_cancel while some exception is pending results in std::terminate ()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78015 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0) > > fails with std::terminate (), while works with -DWORKAROUND. > > It's the other way around, right? Was the

[Bug libstdc++/78015] pthread_cancel while some exception is pending results in std::terminate ()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78015 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0) > fails with std::terminate (), while works with -DWORKAROUND. It's the other way around, right? Was the testcase meant to use #ifndef? I can take a look at

[Bug target/82106] [RISCV] Misaligned loads generated when doubles are split between stack and registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82106 --- Comment #4 from Palmer Dabbelt --- Ya, sorry, I misread the assembly.

[Bug libstdc++/78015] pthread_cancel while some exception is pending results in std::terminate ()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78015 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- No, but I'm not familiar enough with the C++ EH libsupc++ stuff to write it myself. Jason, do you think you could try that?

[Bug fortran/82064] [7/8 Regression] [OOP] multiple incompatible definitions of extended derived type via module use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82064 --- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #4) > (In reply to janus from comment #3) > > It appears that the regression has been introduced by r241450, which was the > > fix for PR 69834. Reverting it,

[Bug c++/82107] [5/6/7/8 Regression] O2 optimisation on amd64 leads to error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82107 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords|

[Bug target/82106] [RISCV] Misaligned loads generated when doubles are split between stack and registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82106 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Waterman --- I believe Alex is correct, in that this is an implementation artifact that can be fixed without breaking the ABI. On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 9:26 AM asb at lowrisc dot org < gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

[Bug c/82063] issues with arguments enabled by -Wall

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82063 --- Comment #5 from Jim Wilson --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3) > Jim, since you've spent some time on this already and understand the > problems, please feel to propose a patch. If you don't get to it I'll see > if I can find the

[Bug target/82108] [7/8 Regression] Wrong vectorized code generated for x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82108 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Known to work|

[Bug c++/82080] ICE: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82080 James Almer changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #42105|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c/82105] unexpected padding in a struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82105 --- Comment #6 from Dudu --- Thanks for the replies, but I do not look to workaround this issue. I simply wonder why gcc behaves as it does on this case. This behavior breaks my understanding of padding. This behavior seems wrong. This behavior

[Bug c++/81787] [5/6/7/8 Regression] `#pragma GCC diagnostic warning "-fpermissive"` no longer works since gcc 4.8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81787 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- Accepting invalid C++ changes the language. It's not a diagnostic option, it's closer to -std in meaning.

[Bug libstdc++/71660] [5/6/7/8 regression] alignment of std::atomic<8 byte primitive type> (long long, double) is wrong on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71660 --- Comment #10 from Thiago Macieira --- Actually, PR 65146 points out that the problem is not efficiency but correctness. An under-aligned type could cross a cacheline boundary and thus fail to be atomic in the first place. Therefore, it is

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug testsuite/81624] [8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr59501-3a.c scan-assembler-not and[^\n\r]*sp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81624 --- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: hjl Date: Tue Sep 5 16:39:24 2017 New Revision: 251718 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251718=gcc=rev Log: i386: Avoid stack realignment if possible ix86_finalize_stack_frame_flags

[Bug tree-optimization/59501] [4.9 Regression] Vector Gather with GCC 4.9 2013-12-08 Snapshot

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59501 --- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: hjl Date: Tue Sep 5 16:39:24 2017 New Revision: 251718 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251718=gcc=rev Log: i386: Avoid stack realignment if possible ix86_finalize_stack_frame_flags

[Bug target/81769] Unnecessary stack realign with -mavx

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81769 --- Comment #1 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: hjl Date: Tue Sep 5 16:39:24 2017 New Revision: 251718 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251718=gcc=rev Log: i386: Avoid stack realignment if possible ix86_finalize_stack_frame_flags

[Bug target/82108] New: [7.2 Regression] Wrong vectorized code generated for x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82108 Bug ID: 82108 Summary: [7.2 Regression] Wrong vectorized code generated for x86_64 Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/81787] [5/6/7/8 Regression] `#pragma GCC diagnostic warning "-fpermissive"` no longer works since gcc 4.8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81787 --- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4) > (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #2) > > My personal opinion is that we should instead have -Wpermissive, which > > defaults to

[Bug tree-optimization/82073] internal compiler error: in pop_to_marker, at tree-ssa-scopedtables.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82073 --- Comment #2 from Vsevolod Livinskiy --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #1) > Could you post the output of g++ -v so we have version and target info > please? Revision is 251589 >$ g++ -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=g++

[Bug target/82106] [RISCV] Misaligned loads generated when doubles are split between stack and registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82106 --- Comment #2 from Alex Bradbury --- Same problem with `-mstrict-align`, which as you say makes this worse. I'm actually not sure if this is an ABI-visible issue. The vararg save area and it's location is basically required by the ABI due to

[Bug target/82106] [RISCV] Misaligned loads generated when doubles are split between stack and registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82106 --- Comment #1 from Palmer Dabbelt --- Ugh. I'd really like to call this a bug and fix it, but since it'll technically break the ABI it'll require some more thought. Does "-mstrict-align" change the behavior? That would be a good argument to

[Bug c++/82107] O2 optimisation on amd64 leads to error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82107 --- Comment #1 from loquens at yandex dot ru --- Additional research found, that error produced by -O1 and -finline-small-functions -fipa-icf -foptimize-sibling-calls. All three flags must be present to get an error. If you exclude

[Bug c++/82107] New: O2 optimisation on amd64 leads to error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82107 Bug ID: 82107 Summary: O2 optimisation on amd64 leads to error Product: gcc Version: 6.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug tree-optimization/82073] internal compiler error: in pop_to_marker, at tree-ssa-scopedtables.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82073 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug sanitizer/82072] sanitizer does not detect an overflow from LLONG_MIN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82072 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug sanitizer/82072] sanitizer does not detect an overflow from LLONG_MIN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82072 --- Comment #16 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Tue Sep 5 15:55:04 2017 New Revision: 251717 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251717=gcc=rev Log: PR sanitizer/82072 * convert.c (convert_to_integer_1) : Move

[Bug sanitizer/82072] sanitizer does not detect an overflow from LLONG_MIN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82072 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/82075] structured binding fails with empty base class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82075 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/82080] ICE: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82080 --- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager --- Created attachment 42128 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42128=edit error messages printed when trying to compile I can't reproduce this bug on i386-apple-darwin9.8.0; with -m32 I get a

[Bug libstdc++/71660] [5/6/7/8 regression] alignment of std::atomic<8 byte primitive type> (long long, double) is wrong on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71660 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com Depends

[Bug c++/64867] warning for passing non-POD to varargs function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867 --- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely --- Whether Clang warns or not depends on the -std mode active, as that decides the definition of a POD it uses. GCC always uses the C++11 rule, which I quoted in comment 9.

[Bug c/82105] unexpected padding in a struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82105 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug go/82043] error: redefinition of ...

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82043 --- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor --- Sorry, I'm not sure what is causing that error. Why don't you just compile GCC trunk?

[Bug target/65146] alignment of _Atomic structure member is not correct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu --- We need to first decide what we want out of i386 atomic. Please send a post to https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/ia32-abi

[Bug target/82106] New: [RISCV] Misaligned loads generated when doubles are split between stack and registers

ble-libssp --with-newlib --with-arch=rv32ima --with-abi=ilp32 --prefix=/home/asb/work/2017_09_05_gcc_build/combined/build/built Thread model: single gcc version 8.0.0 20170905 (experimental) (GCC) COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-v' '-c' '-march=rv32ifd' '-mabi=ilp32d' '-O1' '-fno-omit-frame-pointer' '-S'

[Bug libstdc++/71660] [5/6/7/8 regression] alignment of std::atomic<8 byte primitive type> (long long, double) is wrong on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71660 --- Comment #8 from Thiago Macieira --- (In reply to Peter Cordes from comment #7) > 8B alignment is required for 8B objects to be efficiently lock-free (using > SSE load / store for .load() and .store(), see >

[Bug c++/64867] warning for passing non-POD to varargs function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rsandifo at gcc dot

ewesyynia

bogcujd

[Bug target/80865] broken compilation on Mac OS X 10.5 / powerpc: unrecognizable insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80865 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/65146] alignment of _Atomic structure member is not correct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146 --- Comment #6 from Peter Cordes --- My test-case on godbolt: https://godbolt.org/g/MmLycw. gcc8 snapshot still only has 4B alignment Fun fact: clang4.0 -m32 inlines lock cmpxchg8b for 8-byte atomic load/store. This is ironic, because it

[Bug demangler/68159] Demangler crash (GDB PR 19190)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68159 --- Comment #15 from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11) > *** Bug 68383 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Bug 68383 was fixed by r245978 So, this one is also fixed right ?

[Bug target/65146] alignment of _Atomic structure member is not correct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ABI CC|

[Bug c++/81942] ICE on empty constexpr constructor with C++14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/81942] ICE on empty constexpr constructor with C++14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942 --- Comment #16 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Tue Sep 5 13:33:44 2017 New Revision: 251714 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251714=gcc=rev Log: /cp 2017-09-05 Paolo Carlini PR

[Bug libstdc++/71660] [5/6/7/8 regression] alignment of std::atomic<8 byte primitive type> (long long, double) is wrong on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71660 --- Comment #7 from Peter Cordes --- C++11 std::atomic<> is correct, and the change was necessary. 8B alignment is required for 8B objects to be efficiently lock-free (using SSE load / store for .load() and .store(), see

[Bug middle-end/81768] [8 Regression] error: control flow in the middle of basic block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81768 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 42126 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42126=edit gcc8-pr81768-2.patch And an untested fix for the other reported bug.

[Bug target/65146] alignment of _Atomic structure member is not correct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146 Peter Cordes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||peter at cordes dot ca --- Comment #4

[Bug target/80865] broken compilation on Mac OS X 10.5 / powerpc: unrecognizable insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80865 --- Comment #3 from Christian Cornelssen --- Created attachment 42124 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42124=edit Darwin/PPC patches mentioned in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2017-01/msg02971.html

[Bug target/80865] broken compilation on Mac OS X 10.5 / powerpc: unrecognizable insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80865 Christian Cornelssen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pkg at 1tein dot de --- Comment

[Bug c++/82084] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE: constructing wstring with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82084 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Tue Sep 5 12:58:00 2017 New Revision: 251711 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251711=gcc=rev Log: 2017-09-05 Richard Biener PR

[Bug c/82105] unexpected padding in a struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82105 --- Comment #4 from Dudu --- Sorry, Andreas I don't understand your comment - can you please explain?

[Bug c/82105] unexpected padding in a struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82105 --- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab --- Bit fields are not allocated across unit boundaries.

[Bug tree-optimization/82078] [8 Regression] wrong code at -O3 in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82078 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug middle-end/81768] [8 Regression] error: control flow in the middle of basic block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81768 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 42123 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42123=edit gcc8-pr81768.patch Untested fix for the simd expansion bug.

[Bug c/82105] unexpected padding in a struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82105 --- Comment #2 from Dudu --- I don't think this is how bitfields works. In the following structs there are no padding between x an y typedef struct { unsigned int x:1; unsigned int y:1; unsigned short z; } XXX; nor in

[Bug middle-end/81768] [8 Regression] error: control flow in the middle of basic block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81768 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code

[Bug c/82105] unexpected padding in a struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82105 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/64867] warning for passing non-POD to varargs function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867 --- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely --- This adds -Wnon-pod-varargs, enabled by -Wconditionally-supported, allowing e.g. -Wconditionally-supported -Werror=non-pod-varargs diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c.opt b/gcc/c-family/c.opt index

[Bug c/82105] New: unexpected padding in a struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82105 Bug ID: 82105 Summary: unexpected padding in a struct Product: gcc Version: 5.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug go/82043] error: redefinition of ...

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82043 --- Comment #6 from martin --- Created attachment 42122 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42122=edit recompiled-gcc7.2-with-patch ../../../gcc-7.2.0/libgo/go/runtime/mheap.go:867:7: error: type mismatch between switch value

[Bug go/82043] error: redefinition of ...

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82043 --- Comment #5 from martin --- I recompiled gcc 7.2.0 with your applied patch: I did: cd gcc-7.2.0/ patch gcc/go/gofrontend/types.cc < ../f9bad13.diff cd .. cd gcc-7.2.0-go/ ../gcc-7.2.0/configure CC=/opt/gcc-7.1/bin/gcc

[Bug ada/79542] [7 regression] ICE in add_gnat_descriptive_type_attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79542 Pierre-Marie de Rodat changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug ada/79542] [7/8 regression] ICE in add_gnat_descriptive_type_attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79542 --- Comment #11 from pmderodat at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: pmderodat Date: Tue Sep 5 11:04:41 2017 New Revision: 251709 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251709=gcc=rev Log: [PR79542][Ada] Fix ICE in dwarf2out.c with nested func. inlining

[Bug c++/64867] warning for passing non-POD to varargs function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/67559] Passing non-trivially copyable objects through '...' doesn't generate warning or error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67559 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/64867] warning for passing non-POD to varargs function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64867 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bisqwit at iki dot fi --- Comment #15

[Bug middle-end/82004] [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 628.pop2_s miscompare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82004 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 5 Sep 2017, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82004 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed |Added >

[Bug c++/81787] [5/6/7/8 Regression] `#pragma GCC diagnostic warning "-fpermissive"` no longer works since gcc 4.8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81787 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/81787] [5/6/7/8 Regression] `#pragma GCC diagnostic warning "-fpermissive"` no longer works since gcc 4.8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81787 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #2) > My personal opinion is that we should instead have -Wpermissive, which > defaults to -Werror=permissive and works like any other -W* option should > (and

[Bug target/82104] New: __stack_chk_fail should not use lazy binding on ELF

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82104 Bug ID: 82104 Summary: __stack_chk_fail should not use lazy binding on ELF Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug middle-end/82004] [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 628.pop2_s miscompare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82004 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8

[Bug c++/81787] [5/6/7/8 Regression] `#pragma GCC diagnostic warning "-fpermissive"` no longer works since gcc 4.8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81787 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug ada/62235] segmentation fault on Ada 2012 code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62235 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

  1   2   >