[Bug target/81709] __attribute__((interrupt)) should handle SSE registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81709 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Anatol from comment #2) > Theoretically it is possible to do things like this manually. Track > functions x86 extensions usage and save registers accordingly. But I would > love to see a more

[Bug c++/81873] spurious -Wreturn-type calling a locally declared noreturn function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81873 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- This is not so much an -Wreturn-type issue but a symptom of the C++ front-end not merging decls for globals. You filed a few other cases which are accepts invalid which are the same here.

[Bug target/81709] __attribute__((interrupt)) should handle SSE registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81709 --- Comment #2 from Anatol --- Theoretically it is possible to do things like this manually. Track functions x86 extensions usage and save registers accordingly. But I would love to see a more automated and less error-prone way to do it. Similar

[Bug c++/81855] [mingw-w64] dllexport-ed explicit template instantiation has no symbol in DLL in certain condition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81855 --- Comment #2 from Xingcan Lan --- Checked diassembly code and found that __declspec(dllexport) never applied to explicitly instantiated `Template`. If I change the code from `extern template struct __declspec(dllexport) Template;` to `extern

[Bug target/80938] [7/8 Regression] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2330

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80938 --- Comment #6 from Alan Modra --- Author: amodra Date: Thu Aug 17 02:03:03 2017 New Revision: 251140 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251140=gcc=rev Log: [RS6000] PR 80938, Don't emit frame info for regs that don't need saving It is

[Bug target/81317] builtin_vec_ld fails for powerpc with altivec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317 --- Comment #24 from Randy MacLeod --- This ICE still happens with gcc-7.2. Here's the stacktrace: (gdb) bt #0 store_expr_with_bounds (exp=exp@entry=0x76275900, target=target@entry=0x7625d660, call_param_p=call_param_p@entry=0,

[Bug c++/81873] spurious -Wreturn-type calling a locally declared noreturn function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81873 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic See Also|

[Bug c++/81873] New: spurious -Wreturn-type calling a locally declared noreturn function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81873 Bug ID: 81873 Summary: spurious -Wreturn-type calling a locally declared noreturn function Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/81488] [8 Regression] gcc goes off the limits allocating memory in gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488 --- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt --- Just for the record, the problem disappears with r250523, in which a change to reassociation of multiplication in match.pd causes the SLSR opportunities to disappear. So the SLSR problem has just gone

[Bug target/81863] [7 regression] -mword-relocations is unreliable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81863 Arnd Bergmann changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work|6.3.1 | --- Comment #1 from Arnd Bergmann ---

[Bug bootstrap/81869] [8 Regression] --enable-checking=yes,rtl failed to bootstrap on 32-bit hosts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81869 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- It doesn't happen with the preprocessed source.

[Bug target/81872] Enable __float128 by default on PowerPC Linux systems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81872 Michael Meissner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/81872] New: Enable __float128 by default on PowerPC Linux systems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81872 Bug ID: 81872 Summary: Enable __float128 by default on PowerPC Linux systems Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3

[Bug bootstrap/81869] [8 Regression] --enable-checking=yes,rtl failed to bootstrap on 32-bit hosts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81869 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #2) > On 64-bit hosts, I got > > (gdb) p cfun->cfg->x_last_basic_block > $1 = 432 > (gdb) call debug_tree (cfun->decl) Please ignore this. I didn't use --enable-checking=yes,rtl

[Bug bootstrap/81869] [8 Regression] --enable-checking=yes,rtl failed to bootstrap on 32-bit hosts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81869 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug sanitizer/81870] -fsanitize=undefined doesn't pay attention to __builtin_assume_aligned()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81870 --- Comment #2 from Petr --- I see, so if I understand it correctly then: 1. `__builtin_assume_aligned()` should be used to promote the type to a higher than natural alignment, for example 16 bytes for easier auto-vectorization. 2.

[Bug tree-optimization/81488] [8 Regression] gcc goes off the limits allocating memory in gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488 --- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt --- With a cross it doesn't reproduce for current trunk (r251128) either, but does reproduce with r250217 as originally reported. So I can look at that. Going to check what made the problem go away also...

[Bug target/81861] [8.0 Regression] ASan pr64820.c testcase segfaults with LTO and -fstack-protector-strong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81861 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Component|lto |target --- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak

[Bug sanitizer/81870] -fsanitize=undefined doesn't pay attention to __builtin_assume_aligned()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81870 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/78666] conflicting attribute alloc_size accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78666 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c/81871] New: bogus attribute alloc_align accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81871 Bug ID: 81871 Summary: bogus attribute alloc_align accepted Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug bootstrap/81869] [8 Regression] --enable-checking=yes,rtl failed to bootstrap on 32-bit hosts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81869 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu --- On 64-bit host, I got Number of expanded macros: 25177 Average number of tokens per macro expansion: 34 Line Table allocations during the compilation process Number of ordinary maps used:

[Bug sanitizer/81870] New: -fsanitize=undefined doesn't pay attention to __builtin_assume_aligned()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81870 Bug ID: 81870 Summary: -fsanitize=undefined doesn't pay attention to __builtin_assume_aligned() Product: gcc Version: 7.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c/78666] conflicting attribute alloc_size accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78666 --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- The following nonsensical declaration is also not diagnosed: void __attribute__ ((alloc_align (1))) f (void*); The attribute handler should check that the referenced argument has integer type and that the

[Bug bootstrap/81869] New: [8 Regression] --enable-checking=yes,rtl failed to bootstrap on 32-bit hosts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81869 Bug ID: 81869 Summary: [8 Regression] --enable-checking=yes,rtl failed to bootstrap on 32-bit hosts Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/81651] Enhancement request: have f951 print out fully qualified module file name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81651 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/81116] Last character of allocatable-length string reset to blank in an assigment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81116 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/81861] [8.0 Regression] ASan pr64820.c testcase segfaults with LTO and -fstack-protector-strong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81861 --- Comment #6 from Maxim Ostapenko --- Created attachment 41990 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41990=edit Untested fix The problem is that LTO doesn't propagate changed ix86_stack_protector_guard_reg value: 6654 /*

Re: [Bug web/?????] New: Fwd: failure notice: Bugzilla down.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, NightStrike wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > > On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote: > >> > >> I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I > >> can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla

Re: [Bug web/?????] New: Fwd: failure notice: Bugzilla down.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017, Eric Gallager wrote: > I see Richi redid all his 7.2 release changes; does that imply that > the server restore is now complete? No, there's still a search process ongoing to identify corrupted or missing files by comparison with the last backup. My expectation is that all

[Bug fortran/81116] Last character of allocatable-length string reset to blank in an assigment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81116 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Wed Aug 16 17:21:22 2017 New Revision: 251125 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251125=gcc=rev Log: 2017-08-16 Thomas Koenig PR fortran/81116

[Bug libstdc++/81797] gcc 7.1.0 fails to build on macOS 10.13 (High Sierra):

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797 Misty De Meo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||misty at brew dot sh --- Comment #3 from

Re: [Bug web/?????] New: Fwd: failure notice: Bugzilla down.

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote: >> >> I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I >> can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error >> message looks like this: > >

[Bug c++/81868] Internal completer error: Segmentation Fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81868 --- Comment #1 from Al Thomason --- I was unable to attach the source files, too large. Please download directly from: https://github.com/AlternatorRegulator/alt-Source/archive/1.1.0.zip -or-

[Bug c++/81868] New: Internal completer error: Segmentation Fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81868 Bug ID: 81868 Summary: Internal completer error: Segmentation Fault Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/81303] [8 Regression] 410.bwaves regression caused by r249919

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81303 amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c/81859] [8 Regression] valgrind error from warn_about_normalization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81859 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-08/msg01004.html

[Bug c++/81867] New: Internal completer error: Segmentation Fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81867 Bug ID: 81867 Summary: Internal completer error: Segmentation Fault Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug middle-end/81814] [5/6/7/8 Regression] Incorrect behaviour at -O0 (conditional operator)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81814 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Component|tree-optimization |middle-end Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/81866] New: ICE with a default template parameter which is a template class nested in a template class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81866 Bug ID: 81866 Summary: ICE with a default template parameter which is a template class nested in a template class Product: gcc Version: 7.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/46091] missed optimization: x86 bt/btc/bts instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46091 --- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Wed Aug 16 15:25:34 2017 New Revision: 251124 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251124=gcc=rev Log: PR target/46091 * config/i386/i386.md (*anddi_1_btr):

[Bug target/67712] [SH] __builtin_strncmp causes code bloat

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67712 Oleg Endo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

Re: [Bug web/?????] New: Fwd: failure notice: Bugzilla down.

On 8/15/17, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 15 August 2017 at 04:10, Martin Sebor wrote: >> On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote: >>> >>> I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I >>> can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The

[Bug middle-end/81832] [8 Regression] ICE in expand_LOOP_DIST_ALIAS, at internal-fn.c:2273

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81832 --- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: amker Date: Wed Aug 16 15:02:03 2017 New Revision: 251123 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251123=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/81832 * tree-ssa-loop-ch.c

[Bug tree-optimization/81488] [8 Regression] gcc goes off the limits allocating memory in gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488 --- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt --- Doesn't reproduce for powerpc64le on current trunk. I'll try a cross.

[Bug tree-optimization/81354] [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault in SSA Strength Reduction using -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug bootstrap/81864] New: building gcc 8 with --enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats fails on x86-64, arm and aarch64 under gnu linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81864 Bug ID: 81864 Summary: building gcc 8 with --enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats fails on x86-64, arm and aarch64 under gnu linux Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status:

[Bug target/61373] neon registers restored incorrectly with -mapcs-frame -O -fno-omit-frame-pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61373 rolf.woehrm...@t-online.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rolf.woehrm...@t-online.de

[Bug tree-optimization/81814] Incorrect behaviour at -O0 (conditional operator)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81814 --- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek --- I wonder if I could just --- a/gcc/fold-const.c +++ b/gcc/fold-const.c @@ -3401,14 +3401,14 @@ operand_equal_for_comparison_p (tree arg0, tree arg1, tree other) primarg1 = get_narrower (arg1, );

[Bug middle-end/81818] aarch64 uses 2-3x memory and 2x time of arm at -Os, -O2, -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81818 --- Comment #9 from Richard Earnshaw --- (In reply to Andrew Roberts from comment #8) > I've tried building gcc-8-20170806 and gcc-8-20170813 with > --enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats > > This fails on x86-64, arm and aarch64 with the same

[Bug tree-optimization/81354] [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault in SSA Strength Reduction using -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354 --- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Wed Aug 16 14:13:27 2017 New Revision: 251122 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251122=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-08-16 Bill Schmidt Backport

[Bug tree-optimization/81354] [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault in SSA Strength Reduction using -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354 --- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Wed Aug 16 14:11:26 2017 New Revision: 251121 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251121=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-08-16 Bill Schmidt Backport

[Bug middle-end/81818] aarch64 uses 2-3x memory and 2x time of arm at -Os, -O2, -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81818 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Roberts --- I've tried building gcc-8-20170806 and gcc-8-20170813 with --enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats This fails on x86-64, arm and aarch64 with the same error. The recently released 7.2.0 build ok on x86-64 at

[Bug c/81859] [8 Regression] valgrind error from warn_about_normalization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81859 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/81354] [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault in SSA Strength Reduction using -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354 --- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Wed Aug 16 14:09:15 2017 New Revision: 251120 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251120=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-08-16 Bill Schmidt Backport

[Bug lto/81861] [8.0 Regression] ASan pr64820.c testcase segfaults with LTO and -fstack-protector-strong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81861 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug lto/81861] [8.0 Regression] ASan pr64820.c testcase segfaults with LTO and -fstack-protector-strong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81861 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.0

[Bug lto/81861] ASan pr64820.c testcase segfaults with LTO and -fstack-protector-strong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81861 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/81827] Large compile time with derived-type rrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81827 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Testing a patch changing level 5 at -O1 from > /usr/bin/time /space/rguenther/install/gcc-7.2/bin/gfortran -S t.f90 -O 1139.91user 1.99system 19:02.37elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 8035048maxresident)k

[Bug tree-optimization/81861] ASan pr64820.c testcase segfaults with LTO and -fstack-protector-strong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81861 --- Comment #3 from Maxim Ostapenko --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1) > You didn't specify compile flags, but using: > > -O2 -fstack-protector-strong -fsanitize=address, I get: Sorry, here they are: $

[Bug tree-optimization/81861] ASan pr64820.c testcase segfaults with LTO and -fstack-protector-strong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81861 --- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1) > Maybe LTO doesn't handle address spaces correctly? Er, asan, not LTO.

[Bug target/81863] New: [7 regression] -mword-relocations is unreliable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81863 Bug ID: 81863 Summary: [7 regression] -mword-relocations is unreliable Product: gcc Version: 7.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/81862] New: [C++11][constexpr] Constructor Parenthesized Initialization of Member Array Crash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81862 Bug ID: 81862 Summary: [C++11][constexpr] Constructor Parenthesized Initialization of Member Array Crash Product: gcc Version: 7.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/81861] ASan pr64820.c testcase segfaults with LTO and -fstack-protector-strong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81861 --- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak --- You didn't specify compile flags, but using: -O2 -fstack-protector-strong -fsanitize=address, I get: 51: c7 82 00 80 ff 7f f1movl $0xf1f1f1f1,0x7fff8000(%rdx) 58: f1 f1 f1 5b: c7 82 04 82

[Bug c/81859] [8 Regression] valgrind error from warn_about_normalization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81859 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/81856] AIX: Makefile:20538: recipe for target 'stage1-bubble' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81856 --- Comment #10 from christian.tremel at itsv dot at --- tried out the 6.4 source, same errors.

[Bug target/77953] [MIPS] ice: insn does not satisfy its constraints - __bswapsi2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77953 --- Comment #2 from James Cowgill --- This appears to be fixed with GCC 7. It is still broken on the GCC 6 branch though (using 6.4).

[Bug tree-optimization/81861] New: ASan pr64820.c testcase segfaults with LTO and -fstack-protector-strong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81861 Bug ID: 81861 Summary: ASan pr64820.c testcase segfaults with LTO and -fstack-protector-strong Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug other/81096] [8 regression] test case ttest in libbacktrace fails starting with its introduction in r249111

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81096 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/81860] New: Call to undefined inline function involving inheriting constructors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81860 Bug ID: 81860 Summary: Call to undefined inline function involving inheriting constructors Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/81859] [8 Regression] valgrind error from warn_about_normalization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81859 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.0 Summary|valgrind error

[Bug target/48863] A Bug When Assembler Instructions with C Expression Operands in arm-elf-gcc 4.5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48863 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/81845] const union's field doesn't interpret as const in switch/case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81845 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Aleksandr Slobodeniuk from comment #0) > What's funny is that I didn't find any compiler, that could compile it. That usually means it's not a bug then.

[Bug middle-end/81695] [5/6/7 Regression] internal compiler error: in size_binop_loc, at fold-const.c:1768

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81695 --- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Wed Aug 16 11:26:41 2017 New Revision: 251119 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251119=gcc=rev Log: PR middle/81695 * fold-const.c (fold_indirect_ref_1): Restore

[Bug c/64609] No -Wbool-compare warning on "(a = 0 && 0) <= 4"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64609 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- It's because we get rid of that && 0 prior calling maybe_warn_bool_compare. But we warn for int fn1 (int a, int b) { return ((a && b) <= 4); } warning: comparison of constant ‘4’ with boolean expression

[Bug c/81845] const union's field doesn't interpret as const in switch/case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81845 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Aleksandr Slobodeniuk from comment #3) > Fields of const-qualified structs and unions, that were initialized with > const literals ARE *constant expressions*, isn't it? No. See 6.6 p6

[Bug c/81845] const union's field doesn't interpret as const in switch/case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81845 --- Comment #4 from Aleksandr Slobodeniuk --- > Fields of const-qualified structs and unions, that were initialized with > const literals ARE *constant expressions*, isn't it? Maybe that's the answer: C11 standard. 6.6 Constant expressions. >

[Bug c/81845] const union's field doesn't interpret as const in switch/case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81845 --- Comment #3 from Aleksandr Slobodeniuk --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > it has to be a constant literal. Sorry, I didn't really specify the standard (and mess c with c++). C11 standard. 6.8.4.2 The switch statement. > 3

[Bug c/81845] const union's field doesn't interpret as const in switch/case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81845 --- Comment #2 from Aleksandr Slobodeniuk --- Sorry, I didn't really specify the standard (and mess c with c++). C11 standard. 6.8.4.2 The switch statement. > 3 The expression of each case label shall be an integer constant expression > and no

[Bug bootstrap/81856] AIX: Makefile:20538: recipe for target 'stage1-bubble' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81856 --- Comment #9 from christian.tremel at itsv dot at --- this is one more reason why i prefer the native ibm compilers.

[Bug middle-end/81818] aarch64 uses 2-3x memory and 2x time of arm at -Os, -O2, -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81818 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Roberts --- I'll try the memory testing on both arm and aarch64. I've also tried -fopt-info-all-optall, I was hoping this would provide some info on what was happening, but it only seems to give any output under -O3.

[Bug lto/81487] [mingw32] ld.exe: error: asprintf failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81487 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/81818] aarch64 uses 2-3x memory and 2x time of arm at -Os, -O2, -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81818 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Roberts --- Looks like this info got purged by the bugzilla failure, here it is again: Ok, I've done some more digging. Looking at the optimization options enabled by -O2 vs -O1, I built the test program at -O1 and

[Bug bootstrap/81856] AIX: Makefile:20538: recipe for target 'stage1-bubble' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81856 --- Comment #8 from Andreas Schwab --- Your g++ is broken. configure: error: in `/usr/local/src/gnutoolchain/gcc-7.2.0/gcc-build-7.2/gcc': configure: error: cannot compute sizeof (long long) See `config.log' for more

[Bug bootstrap/81856] AIX: Makefile:20538: recipe for target 'stage1-bubble' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81856 --- Comment #7 from christian.tremel at itsv dot at --- Created attachment 41986 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41986=edit build_gcc.log to rule out potential xlc quirks, i took a run with an older version of gcc. also

[Bug bootstrap/81856] AIX: Makefile:20538: recipe for target 'stage1-bubble' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81856 --- Comment #6 from christian.tremel at itsv dot at --- well, it is. root@aixbuildhost: /root # cat hello.cpp #include int main() { std::cout << "It's me,Maria !\n"; } root@aixbuildhost: /root # vi hello.cpp root@aixbuildhost: /root # xlC_r

[Bug bootstrap/81856] AIX: Makefile:20538: recipe for target 'stage1-bubble' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81856 --- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab --- Looks like xlC_r is not a C++ compiler.

[Bug c/81859] New: valgrind error from warn_about_normalization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81859 Bug ID: 81859 Summary: valgrind error from warn_about_normalization Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c++/80593] [7 Regression] GCC 7, aligned_storage and “dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules”

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80593 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||joerg.rich...@pdv-fs.de --- Comment

[Bug c++/81858] Wrong strict-aliasing warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81858 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/81858] New: Wrong strict-aliasing warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81858 Bug ID: 81858 Summary: Wrong strict-aliasing warning Product: gcc Version: 7.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug libstdc++/81857] New: istreambuf_iterator not work as input iterator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81857 Bug ID: 81857 Summary: istreambuf_iterator not work as input iterator Product: gcc Version: 6.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug bootstrap/81856] AIX: Makefile:20538: recipe for target 'stage1-bubble' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81856 --- Comment #4 from christian.tremel at itsv dot at --- Created attachment 41985 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41985=edit build.log

[Bug libstdc++/68210] nothrow operator fails to call default new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68210 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|7.3 |---

[Bug c++/81852] Feature request: __cpp_threadsafe_static_init

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81852 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/81017] Class with vector of unique_ptr and std::function does not compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81017 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|7.3 |6.5

[Bug bootstrap/81856] AIX: Makefile:20538: recipe for target 'stage1-bubble' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81856 --- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab --- The full build log, not just an excerpt.

[Bug bootstrap/81856] AIX: Makefile:20538: recipe for target 'stage1-bubble' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81856 --- Comment #2 from christian.tremel at itsv dot at --- hmmm..not sure which logfile you are after. theres is nothing in config.log that points to that bubble error. root@aixbuildhost: /usr/local/src/gnutoolchain/gcc-7.2.0/gcc-build-7.2 # grep

[Bug fortran/81827] Large compile time with derived-type rrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81827 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- 4.9.4 seems "fine" (well, it doesn't allocate recursively but just zero-initializes everything...)

[Bug c++/81852] Feature request: __cpp_threadsafe_static_init

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81852 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

  1   2   3   >