[Bug fortran/41599] [OOP] SELECT TYPE with associate-name => exp: Use (sometimes) a restricted pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41599 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #4 from

[Bug fortran/63858] fixed form OpenACC directive ICE with -fopenacc -fopenmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63858 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||openmp Status|NEW

[Bug fortran/46783] [OOP] TRANSFER with polymorphic MOLD=

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46783 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #2 from

[Bug fortran/61615] Failure to resolve correct generic with TYPE(C_PTR) arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61615 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #8 from

[Bug fortran/51266] [F08] Pointer initialization in PARAMETER

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51266 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #6 from

[Bug tree-optimization/67889] ICE on valid code at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu in VN_INFO, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:384

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67889 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- changelog got attributed to PR67891

[Bug tree-optimization/67916] New: wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

: posix gcc version 6.0.0 20151009 (experimental) [trunk revision 228653] (GCC) $ $ gcc-trunk -O2 small.c; ./a.out $ gcc-5.2 -O3 small.c; ./a.out $ $ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c $ ./a.out Aborted (core dumped) $ int a[6], b = 1, d, e; long long c; static

[Bug debug/65779] [5/6 Regression] undefined local symbol on powerpc [regression]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65779 --- Comment #12 from baoshan --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11) > I suspect this was fixed for GCC 6 with the patch that fixed bug 67789 > (which is the more correct patch). I think they are two different issues. 67789 is

[Bug debug/65779] [5/6 Regression] undefined local symbol on powerpc [regression]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65779 --- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski --- I suspect this was fixed for GCC 6 with the patch that fixed bug 67789 (which is the more correct patch).

[Bug tree-optimization/67915] New: ICE on valid code at -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

-werror --enable-multilib Thread model: posix gcc version 6.0.0 20151009 (experimental) [trunk revision 228653] (GCC) $ $ gcc-trunk -Os -c small.c $ gcc-5.2 -O2 -c small.c $ $ gcc-trunk -O2 -c small.c small.c: In function ‘fn2’: small.c:10:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault fn2

[Bug debug/65779] [5/6 Regression] undefined local symbol on powerpc [regression]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65779 --- Comment #10 from baoshan --- This is my fix for this issue, any comment is welcome. --- 10 gcc/function.c |5 +++-- 11 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) 12 13 diff --git a/gcc/function.c

[Bug fortran/57126] Matching host-associated generic vs. same-named use-associated generic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57126 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/67891] [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr43300.c (internal compiler error) on alpha-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67891 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri Oct 9 08:12:18 2015 New Revision: 228635 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228635=gcc=rev Log: 2015-10-09 Richard Biener PR

[Bug tree-optimization/67889] ICE on valid code at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu in VN_INFO, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:384

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67889 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug testsuite/67905] running the libstdc++ testsuite as root removed /dev/null from my system

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67905 --- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager --- Actually, disregard my previous statement about mail-report.log being incomplete; everything ended up in it, despite the messages printed while making it. The part about it being un-emailable was still true

[Bug c++/67906] New: Missing warning about std::move without effect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906 Bug ID: 67906 Summary: Missing warning about std::move without effect Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug rtl-optimization/66306] ICE in reload

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66306 Andreas Krebbel changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/66306] ICE in reload

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66306 Andreas Krebbel changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED --- Comment #4 from Andreas

[Bug middle-end/67891] [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr43300.c (internal compiler error) on alpha-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67891 --- Comment #2 from Alexandre Oliva --- Created attachment 36469 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36469=edit Patch that works around the problem Ugh. assign_parms's use of emit_block_move (as for parameter a in this

[Bug libstdc++/67903] std::locale compatibility between gcc4.9 and gcc5.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67903 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- To me it looks like the issue is that when statically linking libstdc++ into a shared library you export the symbols of that libstdc++ copy and thus they participate in merging. So my suggestion is that

[Bug fortran/56758] Missing bounds check for explict-size arrays (+ character scalar storage association)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56758 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/67914] New: Unrecognized command line argument warning not shown unless there is another warning for -Wno-*

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67914 Bug ID: 67914 Summary: Unrecognized command line argument warning not shown unless there is another warning for -Wno-* Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/51284] [OOP] CLASS and VALUE attribute: No copy to temporary done

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51284 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/64945] Structure constructors and non-NULL-data-targets and polymorphic pointer components

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64945 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug translation/67892] [5/6 Regression] Wrong code at -O1 and above

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67892 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug c/67914] Unrecognized command line argument warning not shown unless there is another warning for -Wno-*

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67914 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/63499] gcc treats unknown -Wno-xxx options differently than -Wxxx

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63499 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||e...@coeus-group.com --- Comment #5

[Bug c++/67910] Two autos in a single function confuses the type system

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67910 Guille changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/63176] std::generate_canonical<float, std::numeric_limits::digits>() generates 1.0f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63176 TC changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com --- Comment #3 from TC

[Bug c++/67910] Two autos in a single function confuses the type system

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67910 --- Comment #6 from Guille --- Can confirm it does compile on gcc version 6.0.0 20151004.

[Bug c++/67913] New: new expression with negative size not diagnosed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67913 Bug ID: 67913 Summary: new expression with negative size not diagnosed Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/67913] new expression with negative size not diagnosed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67913 --- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor --- The following otherwise untested patch makes GCC reject new expressions with negative numbers of elements: @@ -3066,6 +3378,14 @@ build_new (vec **placement, tree type, tree nelts,

[Bug fortran/67779] Strange ordering with strings in extended object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67779 --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres --- I have instrumented the test and found that 'String = 10 ', which at the first position, is compared only once at the first call to quick sort, but not for the other invocations of array(1:j).

[Bug tree-optimization/62113] [graphite] ICE using -floop-parallelize-all

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62113 Sebastian Pop changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug libgomp/65437] acc_update_device and acc_update_self fail to initialize runtime.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65437 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/67895] Wrong assembly: incorrect rounding/SAE specifier position

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67895 Alexander Fomin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/47598] -fgraphite-identity at -O2 breaks profiledbootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47598 Sebastian Pop changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/67909] New: [6 Regression] 416.gamess in SPEC CPU 2006 is miscompiled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67909 Bug ID: 67909 Summary: [6 Regression] 416.gamess in SPEC CPU 2006 is miscompiled Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/59859] [meta-bug] GRAPHITE issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859 Bug 59859 depends on bug 67518, which changed state. Bug 67518 Summary: [6 Regression][graphite] ISL: position out of bounds https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67518 What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/67518] [6 Regression][graphite] ISL: position out of bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67518 Sebastian Pop changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/50210] [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE: in create_linear_expr_from_tree, at graphite-sese-to-poly.c:1137 with fgraphite-identity -ffast-math -fno-tree-scev-cprop -fstrict-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50210 Sebastian Pop changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/59859] [meta-bug] GRAPHITE issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859 Bug 59859 depends on bug 50210, which changed state. Bug 50210 Summary: [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE: in create_linear_expr_from_tree, at graphite-sese-to-poly.c:1137 with fgraphite-identity -ffast-math -fno-tree-scev-cprop -fstrict-overflow

[Bug fortran/66860] [5/6 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/graphite/pr42393.f90 -O (internal compiler error)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66860 Sebastian Pop changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug target/67895] Wrong assembly: incorrect rounding/SAE specifier position

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67895 --- Comment #1 from afomin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: afomin Date: Fri Oct 9 15:57:06 2015 New Revision: 228660 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228660=gcc=rev Log: AVX512: Fix embedded rounding/SAE specifier position. gcc/ PR

[Bug tree-optimization/66070] [GRAPHITE] cc1 gets killed by OOM killer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66070 Sebastian Pop changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug libgomp/66518] FAIL: libgomp.oacc-c/../libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/lib-42.c -DACC_DEVICE_TYPE_host_nonshm=1 -DACC_MEM_SHARED=0 output pattern test, is , should match \[[0-9a-fA-FxX]+,256\] is not m

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66518 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5/6 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225 --- Comment #24 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > So deferring to 6.0 then. Any progress?

[Bug tree-optimization/66926] [6 regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/graphite/vect-pr40979.f90 -O (internal compiler error)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66926 Sebastian Pop changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/67910] New: Two autos in a single function confuses the type system

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67910 Bug ID: 67910 Summary: Two autos in a single function confuses the type system Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major

[Bug libstdc++/67903] std::locale compatibility between gcc4.9 and gcc5.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67903 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Yucheng Low from comment #0) > This would not be a problem if not for the fact that: > - the global locale is initialized with an inplace new: > locale_init.cc:378 >

[Bug fortran/67900] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Interface bug: Binding parameters to C causes a compiler segmentation fault.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67900 --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres --- The code compiles without error with the patch in comment 2 without regression. I have reread the comments in pr48858 and pr55465 and did not convinced myself that the code is invalid.

[Bug fortran/67894] bounds of assumed-rank dummy argument not equal to actual argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67894 --- Comment #2 from John Donners --- Hello Dominique, thank you for your reaction. Yes, I should have added the output and my expectation. I expected to see the following: Actual argument, allocatable, lbound= 3 10

[Bug fortran/67894] bounds of assumed-rank dummy argument not equal to actual argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67894 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #3 from

[Bug debug/67192] [6 Regression] Backward-goto in loop can get wrong line number

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67192 --- Comment #17 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Andreas Arnez from comment #16) > Well, I'm rather a GDB- than a GCC developer. My interest in this is to > ensure that GDB doesn't become completely useless ;-) > Also, I thought that

[Bug target/63304] Aarch64 pc-relative load offset out of range

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63304 --- Comment #26 from Ramana Radhakrishnan --- Author: ramana Date: Fri Oct 9 10:58:06 2015 New Revision: 228644 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228644=gcc=rev Log: [AArch64] Handle literal pools for functions > 1 MiB in size. This patch

[Bug debug/67192] [6 Regression] Backward-goto in loop can get wrong line number

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67192 --- Comment #19 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #18) > The "simpler" progression seems to be to remove code like > > if (CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P (t) && code != LABEL_EXPR) > { > if

[Bug fortran/67894] bounds of assumed-rank dummy argument not equal to actual argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67894 --- Comment #4 from John Donners --- I think that you meant an assumed-shape array with real,dimension(:,:,:) :: a The assumed-shape array is described in section 5.5.8.3 of the draft standard and it explicitly says that the lower bound is

[Bug target/67366] Poor assembly generation for unaligned memory accesses on ARM v6 & v7 cpus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/63304] Aarch64 pc-relative load offset out of range

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63304 --- Comment #27 from Ramana Radhakrishnan --- (In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #26) > Author: ramana > Date: Fri Oct 9 10:58:06 2015 > New Revision: 228644 > > URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228644=gcc=rev > Log: >

[Bug fortran/67894] bounds of assumed-rank dummy argument not equal to actual argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67894 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/67891] [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr43300.c (internal compiler error) on alpha-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67891 --- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva --- Author: aoliva Date: Fri Oct 9 12:18:58 2015 New Revision: 228652 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228652=gcc=rev Log: [PR67891] don't test is_gimple_reg after parm expansion for gcc/ChangeLog

[Bug fortran/67817] Missing compilation error for some wrong conversions in data

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67817 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/67828] [6 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67828 --- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva --- Author: aoliva Date: Fri Oct 9 12:18:24 2015 New Revision: 228650 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228650=gcc=rev Log: [PR67828] don't unswitch on default defs of non-parms for gcc/ChangeLog

[Bug middle-end/67766] [6 Regression]: Bootstrap failure on alpha-linux-gnu: ICE in simplify_subreg, at simplify-rtx.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67766 --- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva --- Author: aoliva Date: Fri Oct 9 12:18:40 2015 New Revision: 228651 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228651=gcc=rev Log: [PR67766] reorder handling of parallels, concats and promoted values in return

[Bug middle-end/67766] [6 Regression]: Bootstrap failure on alpha-linux-gnu: ICE in simplify_subreg, at simplify-rtx.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67766 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/64164] [4.9/5/6 Regression] one more stack slot used due to one less inlining level

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164 Bug 64164 depends on bug 67766, which changed state. Bug 67766 Summary: [6 Regression]: Bootstrap failure on alpha-linux-gnu: ICE in simplify_subreg, at simplify-rtx.c https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67766 What

[Bug rtl-optimization/67828] [6 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67828 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/54753] assumed-rank dummies: Reject assumed-size actuals in in some cases (C535c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54753 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/67861] [6 Regression] coreutils' wc.c:write_counts is miscompiled since commit 7e3a76de7c496449b187c2688d958631cf21a944

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67861 --- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell --- Author: nathan Date: Fri Oct 9 14:13:39 2015 New Revision: 228657 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228657=gcc=rev Log: * config/nvptx/nvptx.c (nvptx_init_axis_predicate): Fix output

[Bug debug/67192] [6 Regression] Backward-goto in loop can get wrong line number

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67192 --- Comment #16 from Andreas Arnez --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #15) > (In reply to Andreas Arnez from comment #11) > > Any news here? AFAIK the problem still exists. > > I still think the solution in comment #10 is the

[Bug target/67366] Poor assembly generation for unaligned memory accesses on ARM v6 & v7 cpus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366 --- Comment #13 from Ramana Radhakrishnan --- Author: ramana Date: Fri Oct 9 10:53:31 2015 New Revision: 228643 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228643=gcc=rev Log: [Patch PR target/67366 1/2] [ARM] - Add movmisalignhi / si patterns This

[Bug target/67366] Poor assembly generation for unaligned memory accesses on ARM v6 & v7 cpus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67366 --- Comment #15 from Ramana Radhakrishnan --- Author: ramana Revision: 228644 Modified property: svn:log Modified: svn:log at Fri Oct 9 11:08:05 2015 -- --- svn:log

[Bug target/63304] Aarch64 pc-relative load offset out of range

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63304 --- Comment #28 from Ramana Radhakrishnan --- Author: ramana Revision: 228644 Modified property: svn:log Modified: svn:log at Fri Oct 9 11:08:05 2015 -- --- svn:log

[Bug debug/67192] [6 Regression] Backward-goto in loop can get wrong line number

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67192 --- Comment #18 from Richard Biener --- The "simpler" progression seems to be to remove code like if (CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P (t) && code != LABEL_EXPR) { if (!EXPR_HAS_LOCATION (t)) SET_EXPR_LOCATION (t, input_location); }

[Bug c++/67876] [6 Regression] ICE when compiling Firefox 38

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67876 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/67903] std::locale compatibility between gcc4.9 and gcc5.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67903 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- (If this is something that should be fixed in the library at all),

[Bug middle-end/67891] [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr43300.c (internal compiler error) on alpha-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67891 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/64164] [4.9/5/6 Regression] one more stack slot used due to one less inlining level

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164 Bug 64164 depends on bug 67891, which changed state. Bug 67891 Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr43300.c (internal compiler error) on alpha-linux-gnu https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67891 What|Removed

[Bug middle-end/64392] ICE: in pdr_stride_in_loop, at graphite-interchange.c:261 (isl_val_gmp.c:47: expecting rational value) with -floop-interchange -floop-strip-mine --param=loop-block-tile-size=0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64392 Sebastian Pop changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/67910] Two autos in a single function confuses the type system

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67910 --- Comment #1 from Guille --- Ignore "__attribute__((unused))", it was added by mistake.

[Bug c++/67911] New: new expression fails to align overaligned types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67911 Bug ID: 67911 Summary: new expression fails to align overaligned types Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/67910] Two autos in a single function confuses the type system

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67910 --- Comment #3 from Guille --- gcc 5.2.0: -Wall -Wextra -std=c++1y

[Bug middle-end/67912] [6 regression] ICE in gen_lowpart_common, at emit-rtl.c:1399

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67912 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug middle-end/67912] New: [6 regression] ICE in gen_lowpart_common, at emit-rtl.c:1399

-solaris2.10/include -isystem /vol/gcc/i386-pc-solaris2.10/sys-include-c -g -O2 -m64 -fpic -W -Wall -gnatpg -nostdinc -m64 s-regpat.adb -o s-regpat.o +===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+ | 6.0.0 20151009 (experimental) [trunk revision 228636] (i386-pc

[Bug c++/67910] Two autos in a single function confuses the type system

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67910 --- Comment #2 from Guille --- struct A {}; struct B {}; static auto f(auto b) -> A { return A(); } // error: could not convert 'A()' from 'A' to 'B' int main() { A a = f(B()); // error: conversion from 'B' to non-scalar type 'A'

[Bug libstdc++/67903] std::locale compatibility between gcc4.9 and gcc5.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67903 --- Comment #4 from Yucheng Low --- I have tried version scripts and it ought to work but I couldn't quite figure out what symbols to hide. In any case, the proposed modification does fix a questionable bit of code in locale.cc (i.e. the

[Bug c++/67911] new expression fails to align overaligned types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67911 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --- (I thought we already had a PR or 2 about this) The future is likely to be based on http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0035r0.html but sadly this is moving forward quite slowly. Users

[Bug c++/67910] Two autos in a single function confuses the type system

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67910 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|major |normal --- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse

[Bug fortran/67894] bounds of assumed-rank dummy argument not equal to actual argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67894 --- Comment #6 from John Donners --- I did have a look at the gcc code to see if I could change this, but I don't know where to start. I did see the tests for the assumed rank bounds and I could help to change those.

[Bug c/67908] New: gcc segfaults with -fstack-check (internal compiler error) / armv7 host and target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67908 Bug ID: 67908 Summary: gcc segfaults with -fstack-check (internal compiler error) / armv7 host and target Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/67760] ICE on contained subroutine in function modifying function return value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67760 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/67894] bounds of assumed-rank dummy argument not equal to actual argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67894 --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > I think that you meant an assumed-shape array with ... Indeed! Thanks for the pointer.

[Bug fortran/67894] bounds of assumed-rank dummy argument not equal to actual argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67894 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c/67907] New: regression: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67907 Bug ID: 67907 Summary: regression: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/67843] experimental/filesystem/iterators/directory_iterator.cc fails on armv5t

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67843 --- Comment #8 from Christophe Lyon --- I've tested the patch you attached. It needs a slight modification because it does not apply to current trunk: _GLIBCXX_READ_MEM_BARRIER; _GLIBCXX_WRITE_MEM_BARRIER; have

[Bug fortran/53867] Probably a bogus warning on types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53867 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/56149] 64 bit gFortran-C interop hidden character argument length passed as 32 bit value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56149 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/67806] ICE on initialization of type(character) with len null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67806 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/67779] Strange ordering with strings in extended object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67779 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/67779] Strange ordering with strings in extended object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67779 --- Comment #3 from Arjen Markus --- Let me clarify: the STRING "String = 10" should come after the STRING "String = 1 ". It is not a matter of the numbers inside. If you compare these strings with LLT(), you will see this.

  1   2   >