[Bug tree-optimization/85756] New: wrong code at -Os on x86-64-linux-gnu in 32-bit mode

-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 9.0.0 20180511 (experimental) [trunk revision 260178] (GCC) $ $ gcctk -m32 -O0 small.c; ./a.out

[Bug target/85755] PowerPC Gcc's -mupdate produces inefficient code on power8/power9 machines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85755 --- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool --- Sigh, i forgot -mcpu=power8 on that last test. GCC 7 was just fine, stdu, everything. GCC 8 was bad already.

[Bug target/85755] PowerPC Gcc's -mupdate produces inefficient code on power8/power9 machines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85755 --- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool --- That is, that GCC 8 did not do pre-increment, but it did no silliness with float registers.

[Bug target/85755] PowerPC Gcc's -mupdate produces inefficient code on power8/power9 machines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85755 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/85755] New: PowerPC Gcc's -mupdate produces inefficient code on power8/power9 machines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85755 Bug ID: 85755 Summary: PowerPC Gcc's -mupdate produces inefficient code on power8/power9 machines Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/85753] missing -Wrestrict on memcpy into a member array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85753 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/85749] Possible -Wsign-conversion false negative with std::default_random_engine

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85749 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/82899] *this in constructors could not alias with reference input parameters of the same type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82899 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #44112|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug tree-optimization/85754] New: missing -Wrestrict on memcpy with non-constant offsets less than size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85754 Bug ID: 85754 Summary: missing -Wrestrict on memcpy with non-constant offsets less than size Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/85698] [8/9 Regression] CPU2017 525.x264_r fails starting with r257581

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85698 --- Comment #5 from Pat Haugen --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) > > Can you claify whether test, ref or train inputs fail for you? I tried > AVX256, AVX128 and plain old SSE sofar without any issue but ref takes some > time...

[Bug tree-optimization/85753] New: missing -Wrestrict on memcpy into a member array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85753 Bug ID: 85753 Summary: missing -Wrestrict on memcpy into a member array Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug other/85752] RFE: self-relative (prepickled) pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85752 --- Comment #1 from H. Peter Anvin --- N.B.: this presumably needs some kind of special treatment of NULL, to prevent NULL from being an absolute value.

[Bug other/85752] New: RFE: self-relative (prepickled) pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85752 Bug ID: 85752 Summary: RFE: self-relative (prepickled) pointers Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: other

[Bug libstdc++/85749] Possible -Wsign-conversion false negative with std::default_random_engine

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85749 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/82899] *this in constructors could not alias with reference input parameters of the same type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82899 --- Comment #16 from Marc Glisse --- (patch should use 'fn && DECL_CONSTRUCTOR_P (fn)' since fn can be NULL) As I was half expecting, messing with the types that directly doesn't work. It means 'this' has type T*restrict, and if I try for

[Bug fortran/85542] [6/7/8/9 Regression] ICE in check_inquiry, at fortran/expr.c:2426

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85542 --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri May 11 18:58:21 2018 New Revision: 260182 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260182=gcc=rev Log: 2018-05-11 Steven G. Kargl PR

[Bug middle-end/85751] New: RFE: option to align code using breakpoint instructions when unreachable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85751 Bug ID: 85751 Summary: RFE: option to align code using breakpoint instructions when unreachable Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/85750] New: Default initialization of derived type array missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85750 Bug ID: 85750 Summary: Default initialization of derived type array missing Product: gcc Version: 8.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/85521] [8/9 Regression] ICE in gfc_resolve_character_array_constructor, at fortran/array.c:2049

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85521 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/85687] ICE in gfc_sym_identifier, at fortran/trans-decl.c:351

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85687 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug c/84595] Add __builtin_break() built-in for a breakpointing mechanism

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84595 H. Peter Anvin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hpa at zytor dot com --- Comment #9

[Bug fortran/33056] [Meta-bug] Data - statement related bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33056 Bug 33056 depends on bug 70870, which changed state. Bug 70870 Summary: Segmentation violation in gfc_assign_data_value https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70870 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/70870] Segmentation violation in gfc_assign_data_value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70870 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|NEW

[Bug fortran/70870] Segmentation violation in gfc_assign_data_value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70870 --- Comment #13 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri May 11 18:35:20 2018 New Revision: 260181 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260181=gcc=rev Log: 2018-05-11 Steven G. Kargl PR

[Bug fortran/85521] [8/9 Regression] ICE in gfc_resolve_character_array_constructor, at fortran/array.c:2049

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85521 --- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri May 11 18:34:14 2018 New Revision: 260180 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260180=gcc=rev Log: 2018-05-11 Steven G. Kargl PR

[Bug fortran/85687] ICE in gfc_sym_identifier, at fortran/trans-decl.c:351

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85687 --- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri May 11 18:33:05 2018 New Revision: 260179 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260179=gcc=rev Log: 2018-05-11 Steven G. Kargl PR

[Bug c++/85749] Possible -Wsign-conversion false negative with std::default_random_engine

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85749 --- Comment #1 from martingalvan at sourceware dot org --- Created attachment 44119 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44119=edit Preprocessed source

[Bug c++/85749] New: Possible -Wsign-conversion false negative with std::default_random_engine

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85749 Bug ID: 85749 Summary: Possible -Wsign-conversion false negative with std::default_random_engine Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/70870] Segmentation violation in gfc_assign_data_value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70870 --- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri May 11 18:00:41 2018 New Revision: 260176 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260176=gcc=rev Log: 2018-05-11 Steven G. Kargl PR

[Bug fortran/85521] [8/9 Regression] ICE in gfc_resolve_character_array_constructor, at fortran/array.c:2049

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85521 --- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri May 11 17:59:05 2018 New Revision: 260175 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260175=gcc=rev Log: 2018-05-11 Steven G. Kargl PR

[Bug fortran/85687] ICE in gfc_sym_identifier, at fortran/trans-decl.c:351

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85687 --- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri May 11 17:58:03 2018 New Revision: 260174 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260174=gcc=rev Log: 2018-05-11 Steven G. Kargl PR

[Bug fortran/70870] Segmentation violation in gfc_assign_data_value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70870 --- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri May 11 17:32:28 2018 New Revision: 260171 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260171=gcc=rev Log: 2018-05-11 Steven G. Kargl PR

[Bug fortran/85521] [8/9 Regression] ICE in gfc_resolve_character_array_constructor, at fortran/array.c:2049

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85521 --- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri May 11 17:30:57 2018 New Revision: 260170 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260170=gcc=rev Log: 2018-05-11 Steven G. Kargl PR

[Bug fortran/85687] ICE in gfc_sym_identifier, at fortran/trans-decl.c:351

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85687 --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri May 11 17:29:14 2018 New Revision: 260169 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260169=gcc=rev Log: 2018-05-11 Steven G. Kargl PR

[Bug rtl-optimization/85745] variable with asm register assignment allocated in wrong reg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85745 Bernd Edlinger changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libffi/85722] testsuite failure in libffi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85722 --- Comment #9 from Chris Giorgi --- Created attachment 44118 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44118=edit gcc-7.3.1-r1.ebuild Funtoo gcc ebuild attached, enabling go triggers libffi test failures. Repo, including patches

[Bug middle-end/85643] attribute nonstring fails to squash -Wstringop-truncation warning at an offset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85643 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch Summary|attribute

[Bug c++/85739] [8/9 Regression] internal compiler error: in finish_member_declaration, at cp/semantics.c:3057

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85739 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug ipa/85655] [8/9 Regression] ICE with -flto and -O2 during IPA pass: cp lto1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85655 --- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor --- Author: jamborm Date: Fri May 11 15:58:29 2018 New Revision: 260166 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260166=gcc=rev Log: Check is_single_const in intersect_with_plats 2018-05-11 Martin Jambor

[Bug rtl-optimization/85745] variable with asm register assignment allocated in wrong reg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85745 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug ipa/85655] [8/9 Regression] ICE with -flto and -O2 during IPA pass: cp lto1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85655 --- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor --- Author: jamborm Date: Fri May 11 15:55:15 2018 New Revision: 260165 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260165=gcc=rev Log: Check is_single_const in intersect_with_plats 2018-05-11 Martin Jambor

[Bug c++/85746] Premature evaluation of __builtin_constant_p?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85746 --- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > For different versions there is the > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-03/msg00355.html > patch. Time to ping that one? ;-) (I don't have a particular

[Bug target/84201] 549.fotonik3d_r from SPEC2017 fails verification with -mprefer-vector-width=256 or 512 on Zen

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84201 --- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor --- When benchmarking GCC 8 on an older Ivy Bridge Xeon, I also got 549.fotonik3d_r verification error just with -Ofast -g -march=native -mtune=native

[Bug c++/85746] Premature evaluation of __builtin_constant_p?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85746 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug c++/85747] suboptimal code without constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug tree-optimization/82571] missing strlen optimization for memchr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82571 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||6.4.0, 7.3.0, 8.1.0 --- Comment #1 from

[Bug target/85434] Address of stack protector guard spilled to stack on ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434 --- Comment #13 from Thomas Preud'homme --- Remains now: 1) add support for PIC access to the guard 2) finish cleanup of the patch

[Bug middle-end/81914] [7 Regression] gcc 7.1 generates branch for code which was branchless in earlier gcc version

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81914 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug ipa/85734] --suggest-attribute=malloc misdiagnoses static functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85734 prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc

[Bug tree-optimization/85725] strchr and strstr of a one-element array with a non-empty string can be assumed to return null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85725 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- That's right: unless otherwise specified, string functions require as arguments valid strings, or as the C++ standard defines them, NTBS (nul-terminated byte string). Thus the only valid string that can be

[Bug target/85733] [8,9 regression] ARM -mbe8 behaviour doesn't match documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85733 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/48200] linking shared library with LTO results in different exported symbols

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48200 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #20 from Martin

[Bug ipa/85656] gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-icf-38.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85656 --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #3) > Created attachment 44108 [details] > i386-pc-solaris2.11 ipa-icf-38.exe.wpa.073i.icf > > It's only one part that fails > > FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-icf-38.c

[Bug ipa/85656] gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-icf-38.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85656 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED Known to fail|

[Bug target/85733] [8,9 regression] ARM -mbe8 behaviour doesn't match documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85733 --- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw --- Author: rearnsha Date: Fri May 11 13:30:55 2018 New Revision: 260163 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260163=gcc=rev Log: [arm] PR target/85733 Restore be8 linking behaviour for ARMv6-M and products

[Bug ipa/85734] --suggest-attribute=malloc misdiagnoses static functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85734 --- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka --- There is function_always_visible_to_compiler_p which should disable this sort of warning. So I suppose we want to test it prior warning about malloc attribute?

[Bug target/85733] [8,9 regression] ARM -mbe8 behaviour doesn't match documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85733 --- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw --- Author: rearnsha Date: Fri May 11 13:29:41 2018 New Revision: 260162 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260162=gcc=rev Log: [arm] PR target/85733 Restore be8 linking behaviour for ARMv6-M and products

[Bug c++/85747] suboptimal code without constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747 --- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Antony Polukhin from comment #4) > Does providing some kind of -Oon-the-fly switch solves the issue with JIT > compile times while still allows more optimizations for the traditional non > JIT

[Bug target/85733] [8,9 regression] ARM -mbe8 behaviour doesn't match documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85733 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|documentation | --- Comment #2 from Richard

[Bug c++/85717] anonymous union in initializer list : do not handle the types correctly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85717 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/85747] suboptimal code without constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747 --- Comment #4 from Antony Polukhin --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #2) > (In reply to Antony Polukhin from comment #0) > > Could the compiler detect that `a[7]` holds values known at compile time and > > force the constexpr on `sort(a

[Bug c++/85747] suboptimal code without constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747 --- Comment #3 from Antony Polukhin --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > What's the reason for writing the code as you pasted it? I've tried to provide a simplified case. In real world `generate()` function will have some

[Bug tree-optimization/85698] [8/9 Regression] CPU2017 525.x264_r fails starting with r257581

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85698 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- I can see what the patch does to this testcase on x86_64 - it enables BB vectorization of the first two loops after runrolling. I don't see anything suspicious here on x86_64 and 525.x264_r works fine for

Hollow Rotor - Lower Cost Rotor for Downhole PC Pump / Mud Motor

__ Even Wall Thickness Hollow Rotor For Downhole PC Pump * Well washing through hollow rotor; * Steam injection into well through hollow sucker rod and hollow rotor;   * use of same components of sucker rod pumping system for both pumping and injecting.   * The system requires the drilling

[Bug lto/82229] GCC7's LTO underperforms compared to GCC6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82229 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/85725] strchr and strstr of a one-element array with a non-empty string can be assumed to return null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85725 --- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab --- The C standard defines a string as "a contiguous sequence of characters terminated by and including the first null character" (7.1.1).

[Bug c++/85747] suboptimal code without constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747 --- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Antony Polukhin from comment #0) > Could the compiler detect that `a[7]` holds values known at compile time and > force the constexpr on `sort(a + 0, a + 7);`? There has to be a limit. If I write

[Bug debug/85748] dbg, gfortran: Erroneous watch of matrix rows as formal arguments using assumed shape

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85748 Eberhard Franz changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug target/83687] [6 Regression] ARM NEON invalid optimisation for vabd/vabdl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83687 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug debug/85748] New: dbg, gfortran: Erroneous watch of matrix rows as formal arguments using assumed shape

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85748 Bug ID: 85748 Summary: dbg, gfortran: Erroneous watch of matrix rows as formal arguments using assumed shape Product: gcc Version: 8.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/85747] suboptimal code without constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug fortran/68846] Pointer function as LValue doesn't work when the assignment regards a dummy argument.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68846 --- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas --- Author: pault Date: Fri May 11 09:35:55 2018 New Revision: 260160 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260160=gcc=rev Log: 2018-05-11 Paul Thomas PR fortran/68846 PR

[Bug fortran/70864] internal compiler error: in gfc_get_symbol_decl, at fortran/trans-decl.c:1403

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70864 --- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas --- Author: pault Date: Fri May 11 09:35:55 2018 New Revision: 260160 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260160=gcc=rev Log: 2018-05-11 Paul Thomas PR fortran/68846 PR

[Bug target/83687] [6 Regression] ARM NEON invalid optimisation for vabd/vabdl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83687 --- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: ktkachov Date: Fri May 11 09:35:31 2018 New Revision: 260159 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260159=gcc=rev Log: [arm] PR target/83687: Fix invalid combination of VSUB + VABS into

[Bug target/85606] [8,9 regression] Assembly file generated for ARM Cortex-M0 should not specify `.arch armv6-m` at all or use `.arch armv6s-m`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85606 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/85606] [8 regression] Assembly file generated for ARM Cortex-M0 should not specify `.arch armv6-m` at all or use `.arch armv6s-m`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85606 --- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw --- Author: rearnsha Date: Fri May 11 09:30:49 2018 New Revision: 260158 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260158=gcc=rev Log: [arm] PR target/85606 prefer armv6s-m for armv6-m parts When Arm introduced

[Bug target/85606] [8 regression] Assembly file generated for ARM Cortex-M0 should not specify `.arch armv6-m` at all or use `.arch armv6s-m`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85606 --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw --- Author: rearnsha Date: Fri May 11 09:28:10 2018 New Revision: 260157 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260157=gcc=rev Log: [arm] PR target/85606 prefer armv6s-m for armv6-m parts When Arm introduced

[Bug middle-end/85740] Non-optimal determining maximum in a loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85740 --- Comment #8 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7) > Confirmed with a Haswell CPU as well. Without the __builtin_expect we > rightfully predict the branch to be 50%/50% which means BB re-ordering will > do either

[Bug c++/85717] anonymous union in initializer list : do not handle the types correctly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85717 --- Comment #4 from claudio daffra --- I expect that the compiler regardless of the location of the types always gives me the same result, error message or warning indeed : # case integer before double : union {

[Bug c++/85739] internal compiler error: in finish_member_declaration, at cp/semantics.c:3057

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85739 Freddie Chopin changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #44111|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/50392] SIGSEGV in gfc_trans_label_assign

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50392 --- Comment #17 from Jürgen Reuter --- Sorry, I don't want to generate unnecessary traffic, I'm just scrolling thru old c.l.f. discussions and stumble over some old reports there from time to time.

[Bug fortran/50392] SIGSEGV in gfc_trans_label_assign

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50392 --- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > This gives in ICE now with the current trunk, while it just shows > an error message for a "Deleted feature" when using -std=f95. Confirmed from at least 4.8 up to trunk (9.0).

[Bug c++/85747] New: suboptimal code without constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85747 Bug ID: 85747 Summary: suboptimal code without constexpr Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal Priority:

[Bug fortran/85742] [8/9 Regression] sizeof allocatable arrays returning wrong value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85742 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Priority|P3

[Bug fortran/50392] SIGSEGV in gfc_trans_label_assign

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50392 Jürgen Reuter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de ---

[Bug fortran/85742] sizeof allocatable arrays returning wrong value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85742 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/85733] [8 regression] ARM -mbe8 behaviour doesn't match documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85733 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug target/85733] [8 regression] ARM -mbe8 behaviour doesn't match documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85733 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/85692] Two source permute not used for vector initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85692 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/85696] OpenMP with variably modified and default(none) won't compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85696 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Fixed for 9.1+ so far, backports queued.

[Bug c++/85739] internal compiler error: in finish_member_declaration, at cp/semantics.c:3057

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85739 --- Comment #1 from Freddie Chopin --- I'm currently in the process of reducing the test case with the wonderful tool that I've found yesterday - C-Reduce (; I hope that I'll be able to upload something short and generic (not requiring

[Bug libffi/85722] testsuite failure in libffi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85722 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- (Based on discussion on IRC these log files are just copy from the terminal connected to the machines where gcc is being built, because of some weird restricted system with limited access which also

[Bug libffi/85722] testsuite failure in libffi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85722 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- Created attachment 44115 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44115=edit libffi test log (In reply to Chris Giorgi from comment #6) > Sorry, only pasted one link, here's the libffi test

[Bug c++/85746] Premature evaluation of __builtin_constant_p?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85746 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug tree-optimization/80617] [missed optimization] Storing constant in two possibly-aliased locations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80617 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 11 May 2018, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80617 > > --- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment

[Bug middle-end/85740] Non-optimal determining maximum in a loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85740 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug tree-optimization/80617] [missed optimization] Storing constant in two possibly-aliased locations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80617 --- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11) > Dup of PR23094 (and fixed). Richard, comment #9 shows that the original testcase is only half-fixed (though the other half seems hard to fix). Does this mean

[Bug c++/85746] New: Premature evaluation of __builtin_constant_p?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85746 Bug ID: 85746 Summary: Premature evaluation of __builtin_constant_p? Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug fortran/85738] internal compiler error: verify_gimple failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85738 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid

[Bug ipa/85734] --suggest-attribute=malloc misdiagnoses static functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85734 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

  1   2   >