税+++票+++业++务

gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org + 开各地正规普通税票，点优惠，包真。 详电：赵小姐 手机：136-202-176-05 业务QQ：1007-255-090 ++15:29 皮铜关乃毫功透功蹬

[Bug middle-end/86979] [9 Regression] ICE: in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2348 with -m32 on darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86979 --- Comment #9 from Andrey Belevantsev --- Eric, thanks for pointing me out to the old PR. From that and what I could understand here from the sched logs, it's not clear to me how to correctly clone REG_ARGS_SIZE insns, so the safest patch of

[Bug tree-optimization/88739] [7/8/9 Regression] Big-endian union bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739 --- Comment #23 from John Dong --- diff -urp a/gcc/expr.c b/gcc/expr.c --- a/gcc/expr.c2019-01-09 03:19:03.750205982 +0800 +++ b/gcc/expr.c2019-01-09 03:38:23.414174738 +0800 @@ -10760,6 +10760,16 @@ expand_expr_real_1 (tree exp,

[Bug target/88765] New: powerpc64le-linux-gnu sub-optimal code generation for builtin atomic ops

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88765 Bug ID: 88765 Summary: powerpc64le-linux-gnu sub-optimal code generation for builtin atomic ops Product: gcc Version: 8.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/88750] [9 Regression] runtime error in statically linked binaries

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88750 --- Comment #16 from Jürgen Reuter --- Yes, after the problem occurred, I did a completely clean new build of gmp, mpfr, mpc, gcc (configured with ../configure --prefix=/usr/local/ --with-gmp=/usr/local/ --with-mpfr=/usr/local/

[Bug c++/87436] [7 Regression] G++ produces >300MB .rodata section to initialize struct with big array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87436 --- Comment #13 from Daniel Gibson --- Great, thanks a lot for fixing this!

[Bug tree-optimization/87214] [9 Regression] r263772 miscompiled 520.omnetpp_r in SPEC CPU 2017

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87214 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED CC|

[Bug middle-end/26163] [meta-bug] missed optimization in SPEC (2k17, 2k and 2k6 and 95)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163 Bug 26163 depends on bug 87214, which changed state. Bug 87214 Summary: [9 Regression] r263772 miscompiled 520.omnetpp_r in SPEC CPU 2017 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87214 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/88718] Strange inconsistency between old style and new style definitions of inline functions.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88718 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug fortran/86322] ICE in reference_record with data statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86322 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 09:40:29PM +, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote: > > Naw, it is is not due to my patch. Rather my patch has > exposed or uncovered a bug in gfortran. gfortran needs >

[Bug c/88718] Strange inconsistency between old style and new style definitions of inline functions.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88718 --- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- Note that there are also such cases as static int x; struct s { int a[sizeof(x)]; } inline *f (void) { return 0; } where the reference to x is part of the return type (still syntactically

[Bug target/88756] [nvptx, openacc] Override too many num_workers in nvptx plugin, instead of erroring out

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88756 --- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries --- Author: vries Date: Wed Jan 9 00:07:55 2019 New Revision: 267747 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267747=gcc=rev Log: [libgomp, testsuite, openacc] Don't use const int for dimensions Const int is

[Bug c++/88744] class non-type template parameters doesn't work with default template parameters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88744 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/88744] class non-type template parameters doesn't work with default template parameters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88744 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Tue Jan 8 23:54:47 2019 New Revision: 267744 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267744=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/88744 * g++.dg/cpp2a/nontype-class12.C: New test. Added:

[Bug c++/88744] class non-type template parameters doesn't work with default template parameters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88744 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Err, this one: #define SA(X) static_assert((X),#X) struct S { int a; int b; constexpr S(int a_, int b_) : a{a_}, b{b_} { } }; template struct X { static constexpr int i = s.a; static constexpr

[Bug libstdc++/87855] std::optional only copy-constructible if T is trivially copy-constructible

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855 --- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely --- Fixed for GCC 9, but I might make the minimal fix on the gcc-8-branch.

[Bug libstdc++/87431] valueless_by_exception() should unconditionally return false if all the constructors are noexcept

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87431 --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Tue Jan 8 23:15:49 2019 New Revision: 267743 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267743=gcc=rev Log: Pretty printer test fixes and improvements Test that StdUniquePtrPrinter

[Bug libstdc++/77990] unique_ptr::unique_ptr(T*) imposes CopyConstructible on the deleter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77990 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Tue Jan 8 23:15:49 2019 New Revision: 267743 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267743=gcc=rev Log: Pretty printer test fixes and improvements Test that StdUniquePtrPrinter

[Bug c++/88744] class non-type template parameters doesn't work with default template parameters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88744 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/88750] [9 Regression] runtime error in statically linked binaries

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88750 --- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #14) > Well, it seems that r267488 from Dec 31 was still working, on the other > hand, I saw a problem on the other MACbook definitely around at latest Dec > 26 or so.

[Bug fortran/88376] [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in is_illegal_recursion, at fortran/resolve.c:1689

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88376 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 08:35:21PM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1) > > The change of behavior

[Bug c/88718] Strange inconsistency between old style and new style definitions of inline functions.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88718 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/87855] std::optional only copy-constructible if T is trivially copy-constructible

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855 --- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Tue Jan 8 23:00:46 2019 New Revision: 267742 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267742=gcc=rev Log: PR libstdc++/87855 fix optional for types with non-trivial copy/move When the

[Bug fortran/68426] Simplification of SPREAD with a derived type element is unimplemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68426 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #5 from Thomas

[Bug c++/88538] parse error with class nontype template parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88538 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/88750] [9 Regression] runtime error in statically linked binaries

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88750 --- Comment #14 from Jürgen Reuter --- Well, it seems that r267488 from Dec 31 was still working, on the other hand, I saw a problem on the other MACbook definitely around at latest Dec 26 or so. Probably before Christmas. It might be that small

[Bug c++/88538] parse error with class nontype template parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88538 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Tue Jan 8 22:33:04 2019 New Revision: 267741 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267741=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/88538 - braced-init-list in template-argument-list. *

[Bug rtl-optimization/79593] [7/8/9 Regression] Poor/Worse code generation for FPU on versions after 6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79593 --- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Jan 8 22:29:56 2019 New Revision: 267740 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267740=gcc=rev Log: PR rtl-optimization/79593 * config/i386/i386.md (reg = mem; mem =

[Bug tree-optimization/88739] [7/8/9 Regression] Big-endian union bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739 --- Comment #22 from Eric Botcazou --- > Is it really pure RTL, therefore not used in tree? So the above patch using > BITS_BIG_ENDIAN for tree stuff would be incorrect to use it? I wouldn't say incorrect, just inappropriate and unnecessary.

[Bug fortran/88750] [9 Regression] runtime error in statically linked binaries

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88750 --- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #12) > No, unfortunately a working svn # is difficult, I first observed it by doing > svn up on another Macbook around Christmas. hmm ... that's tricky - a busy time

[Bug fortran/88750] [9 Regression] runtime error in statically linked binaries

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88750 --- Comment #12 from Jürgen Reuter --- No, unfortunately a working svn # is difficult, I first observed it by doing svn up on another Macbook around Christmas. What do you mean by transcripts?

[Bug bootstrap/88714] [9 regression] bootstrap comparison failure on armv7l since r265398

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Thanks. So, can you for that sort.i do -da -fdump-tree-all when compiled both with stage1 and stage2 and see where things start to differ? Or, try to change either: STAGE1_TFLAGS += -fno-checking

[Bug fortran/88750] [9 Regression] runtime error in statically linked binaries

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88750 --- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #10) > The trunk, svn 267657, all newest versions of gmp, mpfr, mpc. It seems that > the problem is also solved when I use the libtool flag -static instead of >

[Bug fortran/88678] [9 regression] Many gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_X.f90 test cases fail starting with r267465

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678 --- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #5) > Hmm, the test case is explicitly adding the options > -ffpe-trap=overflow,invalid, so is this a test case error? We tell it to > trap on invalid fp

[Bug fortran/88750] [9 Regression] runtime error in statically linked binaries

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88750 --- Comment #10 from Jürgen Reuter --- The trunk, svn 267657, all newest versions of gmp, mpfr, mpc. It seems that the problem is also solved when I use the libtool flag -static instead of -static-libtool-libs for libtool to build these

[Bug fortran/88750] [9 Regression] runtime error in statically linked binaries

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88750 --- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #8) Thanks! I've been using gmp-6.1.2, mpfr-3.1.6, mpc-1.1.0 isl-0.20 on all my recent builds (for trunk, gcc-8 and gcc-7) You don't (I think) mention whether the GCC

[Bug bootstrap/88714] [9 regression] bootstrap comparison failure on armv7l since r265398

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714 --- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson --- Created attachment 45384 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45384=edit pre-processed source for libiberty/sort.c One of the smallest .o files that differ is from libiberty's sort.c

[Bug fortran/88678] [9 regression] Many gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_X.f90 test cases fail starting with r267465

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 08:37:11PM +, bergner at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > Confirmed. I don't think the mentioned revision caused the problem, other > than > adding a new test case that fails the same

[Bug c++/80916] [7/8/9 Regression] Spurious "declared 'static' but never defined" warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80916 --- Comment #8 from Davin McCall --- (In reply to ensadc from comment #7) > Note that the "never defined" part is also misleading: the warning persists > when `i::dispatch` does have a definition Yes; and actually, I note that in the original

[Bug fortran/86322] [9 Regression] ICE in reference_record with data statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86322 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 08:15:46PM +, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86322 > > janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug target/88457] ICE: Max. number of generated reload insns per insn is achieved (90)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88457 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Jan 8 21:36:21 2019 New Revision: 267739 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267739=gcc=rev Log: PR target/88457 * gcc.target/powerpc/pr88457.c: Remove -m32, -c and

[Bug fortran/88750] [9 Regression] runtime error in statically linked binaries

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88750 --- Comment #8 from Jürgen Reuter --- Yes I know: here is the non-working library resolution: static_1.exe: lib/libcuttools.dylib (compatibility version 0.0.0, current version 0.0.0) lib/libopenloops.dylib (compatibility version 0.0.0,

[Bug rtl-optimization/87305] [9 Regression] Segfault in end_hard_regno in setup_live_pseudos_and_spill_after_risky_transforms on aarch64 big-endian

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87305 --- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > > Vlad, could you please have a look? I've just started to work on it.

[Bug tree-optimization/88739] [7/8/9 Regression] Big-endian union bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739 --- Comment #21 from Wilco --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #20) > > BITS_BIG_ENDIAN is just a convenience to the target code writer. The other > > four do matter, and are quite obvious really (and all four are necessary). > > Yes,

[Bug fortran/88750] [9 Regression] runtime error in statically linked binaries

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88750 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7

[Bug rtl-optimization/88331] [9 Regression] ICE in rtl_verify_bb_layout, at cfgrtl.c:2987

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88331 --- Comment #14 from mateuszb at poczta dot onet.pl --- The patch from comment #13 solve my problems. Thanks!

[Bug tree-optimization/88739] [7/8/9 Regression] Big-endian union bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739 --- Comment #20 from Eric Botcazou --- > BITS_BIG_ENDIAN is just a convenience to the target code writer. The other > four do matter, and are quite obvious really (and all four are necessary). Yes, I agree that BITS_BIG_ENDIAN shouldn't matter

[Bug fortran/88678] [9 regression] Many gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_X.f90 test cases fail starting with r267465

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678 --- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner --- Hmm, the test case is explicitly adding the options -ffpe-trap=overflow,invalid, so is this a test case error? We tell it to trap on invalid fp operations which we force it to do when generating the

[Bug fortran/84245] [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in delete_root, at fortran/bbt.c:150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84245 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug target/88764] New: [nvptx, libgomp, testsuite] Update testsuite for default vector length larger than 32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88764 Bug ID: 88764 Summary: [nvptx, libgomp, testsuite] Update testsuite for default vector length larger than 32 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/88678] [9 regression] Many gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_X.f90 test cases fail starting with r267465

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/88376] [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in is_illegal_recursion, at fortran/resolve.c:1689

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88376 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug libstdc++/88749] [9 Regression] Failure while building libstdc++-v3/src/filesystem/ops.cc on trunk

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88749 --- Comment #16 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Tue, 8 Jan 2019, romain.geissler at amadeus dot com wrote: > FYI, what I am following are the Linux From Scratch guidelines, which build > the > initial gcc like this (with both c and

[Bug fortran/53320] -fcheck=pointer should diagnose pointer-assignment of a noncontiguous tgt to a CONTIGUOUS ptr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53320 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig

[Bug fortran/86322] [9 Regression] ICE in reference_record with data statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86322 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug bootstrap/88450] [9 regression] ICE in stage 2 compiler while configuring libgcc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88450 --- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou --- > ICE still occurs with current trunk (r267728) patched with > gcc9-pr88331.patch from PR88331. r266345 seems to give quite a hard time for > cygwin / mingw targets, might be worth reverting as the gcc 9

[Bug libstdc++/88749] [9 Regression] Failure while building libstdc++-v3/src/filesystem/ops.cc on trunk

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88749 --- Comment #15 from Romain Geissler --- Thanks for these remarks. FYI, what I am following are the Linux From Scratch guidelines, which build the initial gcc like this (with both c and C++ support, disabling libstdc++ build):

[Bug fortran/88653] Is this a compiler bug?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/88572] error: braces around scalar initializer - should be a warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88572 --- Comment #12 from Will Wray --- On further investigation the logic of using first_initializer_p looks correct. The comment on reshape_init suggests that it wasn't intended for scalar init: /* Undo the brace-elision allowed by

[Bug fortran/88653] Is this a compiler bug?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653 --- Comment #22 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Apparently, this is some kind of cygwin problem. Did you report the problem to cygwin?

[Bug fortran/88047] [9 Regression] ICE in gfc_find_vtab, at fortran/class.c:2843

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88047 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug bootstrap/88450] [9 regression] ICE in stage 2 compiler while configuring libgcc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88450 --- Comment #13 from Bence Szabó --- ICE still occurs with current trunk (r267728) patched with gcc9-pr88331.patch from PR88331. r266345 seems to give quite a hard time for cygwin / mingw targets, might be worth reverting as the gcc 9 release is

[Bug fortran/88047] [9 Regression] ICE in gfc_find_vtab, at fortran/class.c:2843

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88047 --- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: janus Date: Tue Jan 8 19:29:01 2019 New Revision: 267735 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267735=gcc=rev Log: 2019-01-08 Janus Weil PR fortran/88047 * class.c

[Bug c++/88761] ICE in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:15478 when chaining lambda calls & fold-expressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88761 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

[Bug c++/88752] ICE in enclosing_instantiation_of, at cp/pt.c:13328

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88752 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Nevertheless the ICE seems to have started with r259043.

[Bug middle-end/24639] [meta-bug] bug to track all Wuninitialized issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639 Bug 24639 depends on bug 88721, which changed state. Bug 88721 Summary: [9 regression] -Wmaybe-uninitialized warnings in sparc.c https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88721 What|Removed |Added

[Bug bootstrap/88721] [9 regression] -Wmaybe-uninitialized warnings in sparc.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88721 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug debug/88723] [9 regression] PR debug/88635 patch breaks testsuite_shared.cc compilation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88723 --- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou --- Author: ebotcazou Date: Tue Jan 8 19:09:52 2019 New Revision: 267734 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267734=gcc=rev Log: PR bootstrap/88721 * config/sparc/sparc.c

[Bug bootstrap/88721] [9 regression] -Wmaybe-uninitialized warnings in sparc.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88721 --- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou --- Author: ebotcazou Date: Tue Jan 8 19:09:52 2019 New Revision: 267734 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267734=gcc=rev Log: PR bootstrap/88721 * config/sparc/sparc.c

[Bug tree-optimization/88739] [7/8/9 Regression] Big-endian union bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739 --- Comment #19 from Wilco --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #18) > Well, it is always possible to generate code with the opposite endianness to > what the hardware "wants". It just won't be very fast code. > > BITS_BIG_ENDIAN

[Bug c++/88752] ICE in enclosing_instantiation_of, at cp/pt.c:13328

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88752 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/88763] New: Better Output for Loop Unswitching

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88763 Bug ID: 88763 Summary: Better Output for Loop Unswitching Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug fortran/88750] [9 Regression] runtime error in statically linked binaries

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88750 --- Comment #6 from Jürgen Reuter --- In the linking before I do see the following warning: ld: warning: direct access in function 'operator new[](unsigned long, std::nothrow_t const&) [clone .cold]' from file

[Bug tree-optimization/88398] vectorization failure for a small loop to do byte comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398 --- Comment #20 from Wilco --- I see Kyrill added some examples that show LLVM knows how to unroll loops: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760 This kind of thing is much worse than a trailing loop, both for branch prediction and

[Bug c++/88754] [7/8/9 Regression] Constructor call wrongly assumed to be a variable declaration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88754 Volker Reichelt changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||3.4.0, 3.4.6, 4.1.0, 4.1.1

[Bug c/81980] Spurious -Wmissing-format-attribute and missing -Wformat for va_list in 32-bit mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81980 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/88739] [7/8/9 Regression] Big-endian union bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739 --- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool --- Well, it is always possible to generate code with the opposite endianness to what the hardware "wants". It just won't be very fast code. BITS_BIG_ENDIAN is just a convenience to the target code

[Bug c++/88762] New: C++17 Deduction guide and operator expression produces missing template argument error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88762 Bug ID: 88762 Summary: C++17 Deduction guide and operator expression produces missing template argument error Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug bootstrap/88714] [9 regression] bootstrap comparison failure on armv7l since r265398

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714 --- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool --- Or, do we have any machine in the compile farm on which this can be reproduced? If so, could you give instructions for that please?

[Bug tree-optimization/88398] vectorization failure for a small loop to do byte comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88398 --- Comment #19 from Wilco --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #18) > The duffs device doesn't need to be done with computed jump, it can be done > with 3 conditional branches + 3 comparisons too. The advantage of doing > that is

[Bug target/88717] Unnecessary vzeroupper

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88717 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/88717] Unnecessary vzeroupper

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88717 --- Comment #8 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: hjl Date: Tue Jan 8 17:40:18 2019 New Revision: 267732 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267732=gcc=rev Log: x86: Don't generate vzeroupper if caller passes AVX/AVX512 registers There

[Bug c++/88761] New: ICE in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:15478 when chaining lambda calls & fold-expressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88761 Bug ID: 88761 Summary: ICE in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:15478 when chaining lambda calls & fold-expressions Product: gcc Version: 8.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/88548] [9 Regression] this accepted in static member functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88548 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/88548] [9 Regression] this accepted in static member functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88548 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Tue Jan 8 17:37:51 2019 New Revision: 267731 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267731=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/88548 - this accepted in static member functions. *

[Bug libstdc++/87855] std::optional only copy-constructible if T is trivially copy-constructible

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87855 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #18 from

[Bug middle-end/88758] [9 Regression] 186.crafty in SPEC CPU 2000 failed to build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88758 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/88760] New: GCC unrolling is suboptimal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760 Bug ID: 88760 Summary: GCC unrolling is suboptimal Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/65425] code optimization leads to spurious FP exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65425 --- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- has my comments on ways in which libm functions can be "const/pure with exceptions". It would be possible to have attributes to

[Bug libstdc++/88749] [9 Regression] Failure while building libstdc++-v3/src/filesystem/ops.cc on trunk

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88749 --- Comment #14 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Tue, 8 Jan 2019, romain.geissler at amadeus dot com wrote: > - binutils, with a linker configured to look for system libraries in a > non-standard folder, empty for now > - gcc,

[Bug ipa/85103] [8/9 Regression] Performance regressions on SPEC with r257582

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85103 --- Comment #20 from Jan Hubicka --- > Looking at our nightly spec runs, the bzip2 degradation has indeed been > cleaned > up. But it looks like 175.vpr degraded another 2% or so over the last couple > days. Knowing what inline decision matters

[Bug rtl-optimization/88331] [9 Regression] ICE in rtl_verify_bb_layout, at cfgrtl.c:2987

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88331 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/46495] target.h and function.h require tm.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46495 --- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Tue, 8 Jan 2019, egallager at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46495 > > Eric Gallager changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug libbacktrace/88745] Darwin lacks an implementation for libbacktrace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88745 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug ipa/85103] [8/9 Regression] Performance regressions on SPEC with r257582

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85103 --- Comment #19 from Pat Haugen --- (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #18) > which makes it to be inlined. Does it solve the perofmrance problem for both > benchmarks? Looking at our nightly spec runs, the bzip2 degradation has indeed been

[Bug c++/88757] [9 Regression] GCC wrongly treats dependent name as a type when it should be treated as a value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88757 --- Comment #2 from d25fe0be@ --- Oops, I didn't realize this. Thank you for clarifying.

[Bug target/88717] Unnecessary vzeroupper

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88717 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to 刘袋鼠 from comment #6) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5) > > (In reply to 刘袋鼠 from comment #4) > > > > > > My thought is AVX_U128_DIRTY would be set when ymm/zmm appeared, and > > >

[Bug fortran/88653] Is this a compiler bug?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653 Murat Tekeev changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|NEW Resolution|WORKSFORME

[Bug fortran/88653] Is this a compiler bug?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653 --- Comment #20 from Murat Tekeev --- Unfortunately, I was happy too soon. I made a mistake - with Fortran 7.4 these files still do not compile. Apparently I installed the latest version of Cygwin on three different machines, the installation is

[Bug fortran/88653] Is this a compiler bug?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653 --- Comment #19 from Murat Tekeev --- Unfortunately, I was happy too soon. I made a mistake - with Fortran 7.4 these files still do not compile. Apparently I installed the latest version of Cygwin on three different machines, the installation is

  1   2   3   >