[Bug c++/82634] New: C++11 std::thread::join

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82634 Bug ID: 82634 Summary: C++11 std::thread::join Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug debug/82630] Bogus DW_AT_GNU_call_site_value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82630 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > The problem is the assembler's special treatment of _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_, > that > .long _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ or .quad _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ on x86 doesn't >

[Bug debug/82630] Bogus DW_AT_GNU_call_site_value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82630 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Then it would be unclear what that generates (something with the old assembler, something else with the new assembler). Trying now to change gcc so that it actually doesn't delegitimize UNSPEC_GOTOFF in this

[Bug rtl-optimization/82628] [8 Regression] wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu in the 32-bit mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82628 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug rtl-optimization/82628] [8 Regression] wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu in the 32-bit mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82628 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Testcase for determining the sbbb and adcb behavior for all operands: int main (void) { int cf, x, y; for (cf = 0; cf < 2; cf++) for (x = 0; x <= 255; x++) for (y = 0; y <= 255; y++)

[Bug c++/82643] lambda capture breaks constexpr-ness of non-static const constexpr member call on non-constexpr value/variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82643 --- Comment #1 from bastien penavayre --- Comment on attachment 42426 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42426 source code int main() { struct A { constexpr int operator()() const { return 42; } };

[Bug c++/82643] lambda capture breaks constexpr-ness of non-static const constexpr member call on non-constexpr value/variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82643 --- Comment #3 from bastien penavayre --- Created attachment 42427 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42427=edit source code

[Bug fortran/53478] gfortran segfaults when module name clashes with C binding name of procedure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53478 --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > The test case in comment 0 and comment 3 are invalid in Fortran 2003; > I think they are valid in Fortran 2008 (cf. PR 48858 comment 9). However, > I need a quiet moment to disentangle the standard

[Bug preprocessor/48839] #error should terminate compilation - similar to missing #include

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48839 --- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #6) > Maybe time to actually send something to gcc-patches for discussion? Please do!

[Bug gcov-profile/82633] gcov does not handle removed functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82633 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/82644] Non-standard hypergeometric special functions defined in strict modes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82644 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- While I'm on the subject, we fail to import the special functions into the global namespace in (because the wrong macro is checked): #include namespace test { using std::beta; // OK using ::beta;

[Bug gcov-profile/82633] gcov does not handle removed functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82633 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- You might need -fkeep-static-functions also.

[Bug libstdc++/82644] New: Non-standard hypergeometric special functions defined in strict modes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82644 Bug ID: 82644 Summary: Non-standard hypergeometric special functions defined in strict modes Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug libstdc++/82644] Non-standard hypergeometric special functions defined in strict modes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82644 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/61593] Support '#pragma mark - foo' on non-Darwin targets (by simply ignoring it without warning)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61593 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/82646] New: bogus -Wstringop-overflow with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 on strncpy with range to a member array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82646 Bug ID: 82646 Summary: bogus -Wstringop-overflow with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 on strncpy with range to a member array Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/57096] Allocatable variable is not behaved as expected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096 --- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres --- I get gA%next(): 2 gA%next(): 4 gA%next(): 6 gAp%next(): 2 gAp%next(): 4 gAp%next(): 6 for 4.8 up to trunk (8.0).

[Bug fortran/59276] Incorrect error message with modules of different gfortran versions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59276 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/57096] Allocatable variable is not behaved as expected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug libgcc/82635] std::thread's join broken on FreeBSD with all GCCs >= 5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82635 --- Comment #10 from Hannes Hauswedell --- > Could you please tell us the FreeBSD version and arch you run on? uname -ra FreeBSD celegans.imp.fu-berlin.de 11.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 11.1-RELEASE #0 r321309: Fri Jul 21

[Bug tree-optimization/82645] New: missing -Wstringop-overflow on strcpy overflowing a member array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82645 Bug ID: 82645 Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow on strcpy overflowing a member array Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug ada/82642] New: Dynamic predicate for a record should give a warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82642 Bug ID: 82642 Summary: Dynamic predicate for a record should give a warning Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/82643] lambda capture breaks constexpr-ness of non-static const constexpr member call on non-constexpr value/variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82643 --- Comment #2 from bastien penavayre --- wrong file attached, see second comment.

[Bug target/81924] [6 Regression] ICE: in simplify_binary_operation_1, at simplify-rtx.c:3678 on powerpc64le-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81924 --- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt --- Er, HERE is the simple patch: Index: gcc/config/rs6000/vsx.md === --- gcc/config/rs6000/vsx.md(revision 253957) +++

[Bug c++/82640] gcc doesn't show errors on anonymous local variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82640 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid

[Bug c++/80985] -Wnoexcept-type should not produce a warning for inlined template functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80985 Barry Revzin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com ---

[Bug libgcc/82635] std::thread's join broken on FreeBSD with all GCCs >= 5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82635 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW CC|

[Bug target/82268] [8 regression] i386/pr82196-1.c fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82268 Daniel Santos changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.santos at pobox dot com ---

[Bug libgcc/82635] std::thread's join broken on FreeBSD with all GCCs >= 5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82635 --- Comment #9 from Andreas Tobler --- Could you please tell us the FreeBSD version and arch you run on? uname -ra

[Bug target/81924] [6 Regression] ICE: in simplify_binary_operation_1, at simplify-rtx.c:3678 on powerpc64le-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81924 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/81924] [6 Regression] ICE: in simplify_binary_operation_1, at simplify-rtx.c:3678 on powerpc64le-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81924 --- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt --- The patch applies cleanly to gcc-6-branch, and I can certainly commit that (although I can't show a case where it can happen with present behavior, it should be cleaned up). For gcc-5-branch, the patch

[Bug target/81924] [6 Regression] ICE: in simplify_binary_operation_1, at simplify-rtx.c:3678 on powerpc64le-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81924 --- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt --- Matthias, the following appears to fix this problem for gcc-5-branch. Obviously the branch is closed to further development, but if you want to consider carrying this patch, let me know and I will give it a

[Bug fortran/82622] [PDT] ICE in structure_alloc_comps, at fortran/trans-array.c:8963

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82622 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/82643] New: lambda capture breaks constexpr-ness of non-static const constexpr member call on non-constexpr value/variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82643 Bug ID: 82643 Summary: lambda capture breaks constexpr-ness of non-static const constexpr member call on non-constexpr value/variable Product: gcc Version: 8.0

[Bug sanitizer/82595] bootstrap fails in libsanitizer on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82595 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Oct 20 08:01:31 2017 New Revision: 253927 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253927=gcc=rev Log: PR sanitizer/82595 * lsan/Makefile.am (lsan_files): Remove

[Bug fortran/82568] [6/7/8] ICE with do-loop inside BLOCK inside omp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82568 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug debug/82631] Bogus DW_AT_GNU_call_site_value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82631 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug debug/82630] Bogus DW_AT_GNU_call_site_value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82630 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- *** Bug 82631 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c++/82629] OpenMP 4.5 Target Region mangling problem

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82629 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/82569] [8 regression] failure in 177.mesa cpu2000 test case after r253530

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82569 --- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou --- It's a conflict with the out-of-ssa pass: this pass implicitly expects every pseudo associated with a partition to be always fully initialized, including a DImode pseudo for a partition attached to a SImode

[Bug tree-optimization/82625] lower-optimization are not inlined with symbol multiversioning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82625 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug sanitizer/82353] [8 Regression] runtime ubsan crash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82353 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug gcov-profile/82614] GCOV crashes while parsing gcda file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82614 --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Marco Castelluccio from comment #5) > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4) > > (In reply to Marco Castelluccio from comment #3) > > > > Thanks for the report Marco. Looks it comes from

[Bug libgomp/82623] many omp tests failed for both C++ and Fortran, gcc-6.4 on Redhat 7.3/64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82623 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/82621] [6/7/8 Regression] wrong code with -Og -fgcse -fweb

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82621 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.5

[Bug target/81874] internal compiler error: in do_SUBST, at combine.c:725

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81874 --- Comment #5 from zwzhangwen.zhang at huawei dot com --- (In reply to zwzhangwen.zhang from comment #4) > I have checked it can be hidden or fixed in gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@239421 > But it fixed PR71654 and it affected comparision expr?

[Bug tree-optimization/82628] [8 Regression] wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu in the 32-bit mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82628 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/82627] [8 regression] r253809 breaks test cases gcc.dg/graphite/interchange-3.c -7.c, -9.c, and uns-interchange-9.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82627 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/82625] lower-optimization are not inlined with symbol multiversioning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82625 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug tree-optimization/82625] lower-optimization are not inlined with symbol multiversioning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82625 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC|mliska at suse dot cz |marxin at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/82574] [8 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82574 amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug middle-end/82569] [8 regression] failure in 177.mesa cpu2000 test case after r253530

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82569 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #7) > It's a conflict with the out-of-ssa pass: this pass implicitly expects every > pseudo associated with a partition to be always fully initialized, including > a

[Bug libgomp/82623] many omp tests failed for both C++ and Fortran, gcc-6.4 on Redhat 7.3/64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82623 --- Comment #3 from Albert --- Created attachment 42410 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42410=edit zipped libgomp.log from the testsuit folder

[Bug libgomp/82623] many omp tests failed for both C++ and Fortran, gcc-6.4 on Redhat 7.3/64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82623 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- >From the log, it is clear you aren't actually testing the newly built compiler, but system gcc, so no wonder it doesn't support OpenMP 4.5 nor -fopenacc option etc. Dunno what have you done to achieve that,

[Bug gcov-profile/82633] New: gcov does not handle removed functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82633 Bug ID: 82633 Summary: gcov does not handle removed functions Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug gcov-profile/48463] gcov does not handle C++ clones (deleting ctors, template instantiations)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48463 --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška --- They basically provide info for all clones of a function: -- | _ZN3FooIfEC2Ev: |6| 2| { |7| 2|b = 123; |8| 2| } -- |

[Bug middle-end/82569] [8 regression] failure in 177.mesa cpu2000 test case after r253530

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82569 --- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou --- Index: cfgexpand.c === --- cfgexpand.c (revision 253921) +++ cfgexpand.c (working copy) @@ -3661,7 +3661,9 @@ expand_gimple_stmt_1 (gimple

[Bug tree-optimization/82603] [7/8 Regression] ICE in ifcvt_local_dce w/ -O2 -ftree-loop-vectorize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82603 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri Oct 20 11:19:03 2017 New Revision: 253932 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253932=gcc=rev Log: 2017-10-20 Richard Biener PR

[Bug debug/82630] Bogus DW_AT_GNU_call_site_value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82630 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,

[Bug middle-end/82569] [8 regression] failure in 177.mesa cpu2000 test case after r253530

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82569 --- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou --- > But I don't fully understand the new issue - what are "other SUBREGs"? The > SUBREG_PROMOTED_VAR setting is set per subreg so we should be able to handle > those okish? The other SUBREGs are the SUBREGs

[Bug target/80640] Missing memory side effect with __atomic_thread_fence (2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80640 torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||torvald at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug libgomp/82623] many omp tests failed for both C++ and Fortran, gcc-6.4 on Redhat 7.3/64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82623 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Albert from comment #6) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > > From the log, it is clear you aren't actually testing the newly built > > compiler, but system gcc, so no wonder it

[Bug gcov-profile/48463] gcov does not handle C++ clones (deleting ctors, template instantiations)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48463 --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška --- Example of template instantiation: $ cat test.cpp template class Foo { public: Foo() { b = 123; } void test() { b = 111; } private: int b; }; template class Foo; template class Foo; int

[Bug gcov-profile/82633] gcov does not handle removed functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82633 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Err. Isn't '-' effectively the same as '0'? Maybe not exactly but '-' as "optimized away" is correct as well, no? I don't think this is a bug...

[Bug tree-optimization/82436] [7 Regression] 465.tonto ICE in vect_get_slp_vect_defs, at tree-vect-slp.c:3410

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82436 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri Oct 20 11:18:00 2017 New Revision: 253931 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253931=gcc=rev Log: 2017-10-20 Richard Biener Backport from mainline

[Bug tree-optimization/82603] [7/8 Regression] ICE in ifcvt_local_dce w/ -O2 -ftree-loop-vectorize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82603 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri Oct 20 11:21:11 2017 New Revision: 253933 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253933=gcc=rev Log: 2017-10-20 Richard Biener PR

[Bug tree-optimization/82603] [7/8 Regression] ICE in ifcvt_local_dce w/ -O2 -ftree-loop-vectorize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82603 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/82568] [6/7/8] ICE with do-loop inside BLOCK inside omp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82568 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- As I said, the standard doesn't cover it, so what it will say about it is unclear. One thing are non-saved non-common non-use_assoc vars inside of the BLOCK, for those defining them as automatic variables

[Bug tree-optimization/82436] [7 Regression] 465.tonto ICE in vect_get_slp_vect_defs, at tree-vect-slp.c:3410

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82436 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug gcov-profile/82633] gcov does not handle removed functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82633 --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška --- I don't think so Richi: documentation says: The execution count is ‘-’ for lines containing no code. And for: $ cat removed.cpp class MyClass2 { public: void iterate() { a = 5; } int a; }; void

[Bug c++/82632] copy deduction candidate erroneously preferred over deduction-guide

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82632 --- Comment #1 from Barry Revzin --- Actually, I'm pretty sure that gcc is correct here while this is a clang bug for rejecting. The copy deduction candidate is more specialized, which is preferred first over the deduction-guide.

[Bug gcov-profile/82633] gcov does not handle removed functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82633 --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- And yes LLVM does it as one would expect: removed.cpp: 1| |class MyClass2 2| |{ 3| | public: 4| 0|void iterate() { a = 5; } 5| | 6| |int a;

[Bug gcov-profile/82633] gcov does not handle removed functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82633 --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3) > > I don't think so Richi: documentation says: > > > > The execution count is ‘-’ for lines containing no code. > >

[Bug libgomp/82623] many omp tests failed for both C++ and Fortran, gcc-6.4 on Redhat 7.3/64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82623 --- Comment #2 from Albert --- Created attachment 42409 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42409=edit libgomp.log from the testsuit folder

[Bug tree-optimization/82628] [8 Regression] wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu in the 32-bit mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82628 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug libgomp/82623] many omp tests failed for both C++ and Fortran, gcc-6.4 on Redhat 7.3/64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82623 --- Comment #5 from Albert --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Can you provide the libgomp.log file? Hi Andrew, the log file from the testsuit folder is attached. Please, drop the first attachment of the libgomp.zip as it was

[Bug libgomp/82623] many omp tests failed for both C++ and Fortran, gcc-6.4 on Redhat 7.3/64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82623 --- Comment #6 from Albert --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > From the log, it is clear you aren't actually testing the newly built > compiler, but system gcc, so no wonder it doesn't support OpenMP 4.5 nor > -fopenacc option etc.

[Bug gcov-profile/82633] gcov does not handle removed functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82633 --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška --- LLVM does: /home/marxin/Programming/testcases/gcov-problems/removed.cpp: 1| |class MyClass2 2| |{ 3| | public: 4| 0|void iterate() { a = 5; } 5| | 6|

[Bug gcov-profile/48463] gcov does not handle C++ clones (deleting ctors, template instantiations)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48463 --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- GCC also has information that there are multiple functions pointing to a same line of code: $ gcov-dump test.gcno | grep FUNCTION test.gcno: 0100: 11:FUNCTION ident=108032747,

[Bug fortran/82568] [6/7/8] ICE with do-loop inside BLOCK inside omp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82568 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug gcov-profile/82633] gcov does not handle removed functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82633 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3) > I don't think so Richi: documentation says: > > The execution count is ‘-’ for lines containing no code. "code" or "source code"? Because what's the

[Bug c++/51242] [C++11] Unable to use strongly typed enums as bit fields

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242 Pavel Revak changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pavel.revak at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/80682] __is_trivially_constructible(void, int) returns true.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80682 Ville Voutilainen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/82370] AVX512 can use a memory operand for immediate-count vpsrlw, but gcc doesn't.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82370 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Oct 20 07:30:33 2017 New Revision: 253924 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253924=gcc=rev Log: PR target/82370 * config/i386/sse.md (VI248_AVX2, VI248_AVX512BW,

[Bug target/82370] AVX512 can use a memory operand for immediate-count vpsrlw, but gcc doesn't.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82370 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Oct 20 07:28:25 2017 New Revision: 253923 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253923=gcc=rev Log: PR target/82370 * config/i386/sse.md (*andnot3, 3, *3):

[Bug sanitizer/82595] bootstrap fails in libsanitizer on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82595 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Oct 20 07:32:35 2017 New Revision: 253925 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253925=gcc=rev Log: PR sanitizer/82595 * config/gnu-user.h (LIBTSAN_EARLY_SPEC): Add

[Bug target/82158] _Noreturn functions that do return clobber caller's registers on ARM32 (but not other arches)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82158 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Oct 20 07:35:48 2017 New Revision: 253926 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253926=gcc=rev Log: PR target/82158 * tree-cfg.c (pass_warn_function_return::execute):

[Bug c++/82635] New: std::thread's join broken on FreeBSD with all GCCs >= 5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82635 Bug ID: 82635 Summary: std::thread's join broken on FreeBSD with all GCCs >= 5 Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/82634] C++11 std::thread::join

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82634 Hannes Hauswedell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/82635] std::thread's join broken on FreeBSD with all GCCs >= 5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82635 --- Comment #1 from Hannes Hauswedell --- Created attachment 42411 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42411=edit test program

[Bug rtl-optimization/82628] [8 Regression] wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu in the 32-bit mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82628 --- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3) > Looks like combine failure to me: > > I don't think that combining: > > (set (reg:CC 17 flags) > (compare:CC (subreg:SI (reg/v:DI 89 [ d ]) 0) >

[Bug tree-optimization/82129] [8 Regression] ICE in compute_antic, at tree-ssa-pre.c:2447

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82129 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- So we oscillate in the expression set because we "randomly" take expressions when intersecting ANTIC_OUT. Both keeping all and canonicalizing to lowest expression ID fixes this. Testing patch.

[Bug tree-optimization/82473] [8 Regression] ICE in vect_get_vec_def_for_stmt_copy, at tree-vect-stmts.c:1524

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82473 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri Oct 20 13:43:47 2017 New Revision: 253937 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253937=gcc=rev Log: 2017-10-20 Richard Biener PR

[Bug debug/82630] Bogus DW_AT_GNU_call_site_value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82630 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/82473] [8 Regression] ICE in vect_get_vec_def_for_stmt_copy, at tree-vect-stmts.c:1524

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82473 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/49526] extra move instruction for smmul

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49526 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|rearnsha at

[Bug sanitizer/82595] bootstrap fails in libsanitizer on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82595 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Still, it was clearly caused by the bogus --without-pic, as lsan_preinit.cc is guarded with a macro that was not enabled if PIC was defined.

[Bug ada/82637] New: Compiler crash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82637 Bug ID: 82637 Summary: Compiler crash Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: ada Assignee:

[Bug middle-end/82617] Internal compiler error in expand_expr_real_1 when compiling the attached file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82617 --- Comment #3 from Ögmundur Petersson --- I fear that it doesn't add any new information but here is my full backtrace: test.f90:22:0: FUNCTION str_words(str,white) RESULT(items) Error: Local declaration from a different function

[Bug ada/82637] Compiler crash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82637 --- Comment #1 from Victor Porton --- Possibly related bug: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82638

  1   2   >