[Bug middle-end/57904] [4.9 Regression] Bogus(?) invokes undefined behavior warning with Fortran's finalization wrapper (gfortran.dg/class_48.f90)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #11) With the patch in comment 9, gfortran.dg/class_48.f90 no longer fails and I don't see any regression. The warning for the test in

[Bug other/59545] Signed integer overflow issues

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59545 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #5) Thanks Jakub, it looks much better now. What is left are mostly left shifts of negative values: gcc/combine.c:11865:14: runtime

[Bug other/56811] [4.8/4.9 Regression] libbacktrace causes undefined symbol _Unwind_GetIPInfo on ia64-hpux

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56811 --- Comment #9 from __vic d.v.a at ngs dot ru --- Is there any progress and/or solid plan? The last available version of G++ for HP-UX is 4.7.1 (here

[Bug bootstrap/59541] [4.9 Regression] Revision 206070 breaks bootstrap on darwin

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59541 --- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- Note that on x86_64-apple-darwin10 the test gcc.dg/tree-prof/cold_partition_label.c has started to fail (compilation, -fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE) between r204856 (OK) and

[Bug other/59545] Signed integer overflow issues

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59545 --- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6) (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #5) gcc/cselib.c:1121:43: runtime error: signed integer overflow: 4224 +

[Bug debug/59510] [4.9 Regression] ICE: in vt_expand_var_loc_chain, at var-tracking.c:8212 with -O2 -g --param=large-stack-frame-growth=1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59510 Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug c/59520] a possible inconsistency in error diagnostics with -pedantic -std=c99

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59520 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot

[Bug middle-end/57904] [4.9 Regression] Bogus(?) invokes undefined behavior warning with Fortran's finalization wrapper (gfortran.dg/class_48.f90)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904 --- Comment #13 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12) But you can always create testcases (in C/C++ etc.) that will hit this warning, so while the FE change is possible, we need to

[Bug preprocessor/59566] [4.8/4.9 regression] g++ preprocessor output includes comments meant for GNU C Library files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59566 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING

[Bug c++/59565] ICE on valid code in DWARF generation

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59565 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|

[Bug tree-optimization/59519] [4.9 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu in slpeel_update_phi_nodes_for_guard1, at tree-vect-loop-manip.c:486

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59519 --- Comment #5 from bin.cheng amker.cheng at gmail dot com --- For the offending loop: bb 5: bb 6: # b.4_30 = PHI b.4_12(5), 1(12) # prephitmp_28 = PHI c.1_9(5), c.1_21(12) # b_lsm.11_13 = PHI b.4_12(5), 1(12) # ivtmp_46 = PHI

[Bug tree-optimization/59564] False positive array -Warray-bounds check with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59564 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug other/59545] Signed integer overflow issues

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59545 Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug bootstrap/59541] [4.9 Regression] Revision 206070 breaks bootstrap on darwin

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59541 --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- could someone please point me at the original post for this patch? I have the same question. I have finally found the answer: final patch at

[Bug tree-optimization/59413] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59413 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Weird, I still get exactly the same code (except for gcc version string) between pre-r205884 and post-r205884. So, what exact differences are you seeing on the testcase, and with

[Bug preprocessor/59566] [4.8/4.9 regression] g++ preprocessor output includes comments meant for GNU C Library files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59566 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/59567] New: Incorrect error 'was not declared in this scope'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59567 Bug ID: 59567 Summary: Incorrect error 'was not declared in this scope' Product: gcc Version: 4.8.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/59567] Incorrect error 'was not declared in this scope'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59567 Jascha Wetzel jascha at jawset dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #31486|0 |1 is

[Bug c++/59567] Incorrect error 'was not declared in this scope'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59567 Jascha Wetzel jascha at jawset dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #31488|compile simply with g++|reproducer

[Bug tree-optimization/59413] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59413 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail

[Bug tree-optimization/59413] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59413 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Ah, my fault then, terribly sorry, I've simplified the testcase a little bit (removed the typedef and used unsigned int instead). Apparently for the reproduction it is important that

[Bug c/59520] a possible inconsistency in error diagnostics with -pedantic -std=c99

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59520 --- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Fri, 20 Dec 2013, su at cs dot ucdavis.edu wrote: In particular, are the following well-defined according the standard or they have undefined behavior?

[Bug tree-optimization/59413] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59413 --- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5) It is fixed by r205884. We can add the testcase and close it. FWIW, it is also introduced by r204516.

[Bug tree-optimization/59413] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59413 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Dec 20 13:07:10 2013 New Revision: 206147 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206147root=gccview=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/59413 *

[Bug tree-optimization/59413] [4.9 Regression] wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59413 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug testsuite/59494] [4.9 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-mgrid-resid.f scan-tree-dump-times optimized vect_[^\\n]*\\+ 13

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59494 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- True, I guess adding -mtune=generic doesn't hurt though, it will be still broken with --target_board=unix/-mtune=core2 or similar testing, but at least it will FAIL less often. For

[Bug tree-optimization/59544] Vectorizing store with negative step

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59544 --- Comment #1 from meibf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: meibf Date: Fri Dec 20 13:46:01 2013 New Revision: 206148 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206148root=gccview=rev Log: 2013-12-20 Bingfeng Mei b...@broadcom.com PR

[Bug c++/59315] [4.9 regression] g++.dg/warn/Wunused-3.C FAILs with -fno-use-cxa-atexit

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59315 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target|*-*-solaris2.* |

[Bug middle-end/59471] [4.9 Regression] ICE using vector extensions (non-top-level BIT_FIELD_REF, IMAGPART_EXPR or REALPART_EXPR)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59471 --- Comment #10 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Testing Index: gimplify.c === ---

[Bug c/59520] a possible inconsistency in error diagnostics with -pedantic -std=c99

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59520 Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug testsuite/59494] [4.9 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-mgrid-resid.f scan-tree-dump-times optimized vect_[^\\n]*\\+ 13

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59494 --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- I believe that is the only reason for the different number of vector additions. I don't think the number of packed double operations is changed, only the number of

[Bug preprocessor/59566] [4.8/4.9 regression] g++ preprocessor output includes comments meant for GNU C Library files

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59566 --- Comment #3 from gdlxn at us dot ibm.com --- Richard and Jakub - Thanks for the quick response and explanation. I was able to use the -nostdinc option to suppress the automatic inclusion of stdc-predef.h, which eliminates the unwanted

[Bug c++/59567] Incorrect error 'was not declared in this scope'

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59567 Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/59255] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Segmentation fault with std::function and -fprofile-use

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59255 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Dec 20 16:32:21 2013 New Revision: 206152 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206152root=gccview=rev Log: PR c++/59255 * g++.dg/tree-prof/pr59255.C:

[Bug c++/59255] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Segmentation fault with std::function and -fprofile-use

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59255 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Dec 20 16:34:21 2013 New Revision: 206153 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206153root=gccview=rev Log: PR c++/59255 Backported from mainline

[Bug c++/59255] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Segmentation fault with std::function and -fprofile-use

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59255 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug debug/54114] VTA compile-time performance could be improved

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54114 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot

[Bug fortran/59561] [4.9 Regression] warning: iteration 4 invokes undefined behavior

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59561 --- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #1) Isn't that effectively a duplicate of the P1 regression PR57904? Might well be, I'm not sure. However, the patch posted in PR 57904 comment 9 does not

[Bug sanitizer/59009] libsanitizer merge from upstream r191666 breaks bootstrap on powerpc64-linux

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59009 --- Comment #40 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 12/19/2013 5:53 PM, John David Anglin wrote: Rechecking status on the arm box. Problem is still there:

[Bug middle-end/57904] [4.9 Regression] Bogus(?) invokes undefined behavior warning with Fortran's finalization wrapper (gfortran.dg/class_48.f90)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904 --- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- So a quick prototype which reuses the infrastructure from the phi-only-propagator cleans things up quite nicely. Given this block after substitute_and_fold does its thing: bb 2:

[Bug rtl-optimization/56069] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] RA pessimization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56069 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot

[Bug middle-end/57904] [4.9 Regression] Bogus(?) invokes undefined behavior warning with Fortran's finalization wrapper (gfortran.dg/class_48.f90)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904 --- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- *** Bug 58746 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug middle-end/58746] [4.9 Regression] Incorrect warning with -Waggressive-loop-optimizations

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58746 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/59568] New: complex type operator does not set eofbit for input streams.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59568 Bug ID: 59568 Summary: complex type operator does not set eofbit for input streams. Product: gcc Version: 4.8.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor

[Bug middle-end/57904] [4.9 Regression] Bogus(?) invokes undefined behavior warning with Fortran's finalization wrapper (gfortran.dg/class_48.f90)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904 --- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- For the FE change, I guess most important are benchmark results, doesn't it slow down important benchmarks? AFAICT the answer is not at least for the gfortran test suite

[Bug c++/59568] complex type operator does not set eofbit for input streams.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59568 --- Comment #1 from Physeterm at yahoo dot com --- Created attachment 31490 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31490action=edit test program

[Bug c++/59568] complex type operator does not set eofbit for input streams.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59568 --- Comment #2 from Physeterm at yahoo dot com --- Created attachment 31491 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31491action=edit input test file

[Bug c++/59568] complex type operator does not set eofbit for input streams.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59568 --- Comment #3 from Physeterm at yahoo dot com --- Created attachment 31492 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31492action=edit output

[Bug c++/59568] complex type operator does not set eofbit for input streams.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59568 --- Comment #4 from Physeterm at yahoo dot com --- Created attachment 31493 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31493action=edit make command

[Bug fortran/59561] [4.9 Regression] warning: iteration 4 invokes undefined behavior

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59561 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug middle-end/59561] [4.9 Regression] warning: iteration 4 invokes undefined behavior

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59561 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at

[Bug middle-end/57904] [4.9 Regression] Bogus(?) invokes undefined behavior warning with Fortran's finalization wrapper (gfortran.dg/class_48.f90)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904 --- Comment #17 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- Dominique, thanks for verifying that 58746 is a duplicate. I was wondering about that. Richi, we've known for a long time (since the early 90s) that running CSE soon after loop

[Bug middle-end/57904] [4.9 Regression] Bogus(?) invokes undefined behavior warning with Fortran's finalization wrapper (gfortran.dg/class_48.f90)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57904 --- Comment #18 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- Whoops, message for Richi was meant for a different BZ.

[Bug bootstrap/59541] [4.9 Regression] Revision 206070 breaks bootstrap on darwin

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59541 --- Comment #9 from Martin Liška marxin.liska at gmail dot com --- Hello, thank you for the hotfix that repaired switch/case missing return value. Actually I was told by Jan to reproduce the functionality from varasm.c that I was able to

[Bug rtl-optimization/56069] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] RA pessimization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56069 --- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #5) Maybe I'm missing something here. We have this immediately prior to IRA: ISTM that we want (reg 86) to prefer di and (reg 87)

[Bug fortran/37336] [F03] Finish derived-type finalization

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336 --- Comment #27 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- From http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-12/msg00104.html ... Currently missing are: a) Finalization of the LHS during intrinsic assignment: b) Finalization of functions results after their use c)

[Bug fortran/45424] [F08] Add IS_CONTIGUOUS intrinsic

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45424 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/59541] [4.9 Regression] Revision 206070 breaks bootstrap on darwin

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59541 --- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- Hello, thank you for the hotfix that repaired switch/case missing return value. Nothing has been committed yet to fix darwin bootstrap!-(

[Bug middle-end/59569] New: [4.9 Regression] r206148 causes internal compiler error: in vect_create_destination_var, at tree-vect-data-refs.c:4294

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59569 Bug ID: 59569 Summary: [4.9 Regression] r206148 causes internal compiler error: in vect_create_destination_var, at tree-vect-data-refs.c:4294 Product: gcc

[Bug middle-end/59569] [4.9 Regression] r206148 causes internal compiler error: in vect_create_destination_var, at tree-vect-data-refs.c:4294

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59569 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Created attachment 31494 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31494action=edit A testcase [hjl@gnu-mic-2 0001]$

[Bug middle-end/59569] [4.9 Regression] r206148 causes internal compiler error: in vect_create_destination_var, at tree-vect-data-refs.c:4294

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59569 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug c++/59570] New: Warning for semicolon trailing closing curly brackets

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59570 Bug ID: 59570 Summary: Warning for semicolon trailing closing curly brackets Product: gcc Version: 4.8.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3

[Bug middle-end/59569] [4.9 Regression] r206148 causes internal compiler error: in vect_create_destination_var, at tree-vect-data-refs.c:4294

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59569 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- 254.gap in SPEC CPU 2K is also failed.

[Bug c++/59571] New: [C++11] ICE when casting inside static member constexpr brace initializer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59571 Bug ID: 59571 Summary: [C++11] ICE when casting inside static member constexpr brace initializer Product: gcc Version: 4.8.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: