[Bug tree-optimization/66726] missed optimization, factor conversion out of COND_EXPR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66726 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment on attachment 35888 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35888 untested prototype patch I thought pre does this already and that seems like a better place

[Bug tree-optimization/66721] [6 regression] gcc.target/i386/pr61403.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66721 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/66726] missed optimization, factor conversion out of COND_EXPR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66726 --- Comment #1 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 35888 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35888action=edit untested prototype patch Hi Jeff, Here is a patch (without debug dumps and not tesetd fully). Is this

[Bug tree-optimization/66733] [6 Regression] ICE at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66733 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED

[Bug target/66730] Optimizer seems to make incorrect assumptions about function alignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66730 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug debug/66728] [5/6 Regression] CONST_WIDE_INT causes corrupted DWARF debug info

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66728 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-debug

[Bug target/66509] the new clang-based assembler in Xcode 7 on 10.11 fails on the libjava/java/lang/reflect/natArray.cc file from FSF gcc 5.1 at -m32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66509 --- Comment #22 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org --- Yes. It cleanly applies to the 5 branch and the 4.9 branch. Let me know how a build and test cycle goes on both, and I propose to drop it into both.

[Bug c/66736] float rounding differences when using constant literal versus variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66736 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug debug/66714] gomp4: libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/atomic_capture-1.c -g ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714 --- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- The cause of the SIGSEGV is that for loc fdata.5 in main._omp_fn.46 DECL_HAS_VALUE_EXPR_P (loc) is set, but DECL_VALUE_EXPR (loc) is NULL: ... Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.

[Bug c/66736] New: float rounding differences when using constant literal versus variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66736 Bug ID: 66736 Summary: float rounding differences when using constant literal versus variable Product: gcc Version: 5.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug testsuite/65944] [5/6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65276: undefined reference to std2::exception::~exception()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65944 Christophe Lyon clyon at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clyon at gcc

[Bug bootstrap/65988] Trying to compile GCC 5.1 in my (customized) Solaris 10/x86-64 fails with GMP errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65988 Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc

[Bug driver/66737] New: ld: warning: -z bndplt ignored

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66737 Bug ID: 66737 Summary: ld: warning: -z bndplt ignored Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: driver

[Bug debug/66714] gomp4: libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/atomic_capture-1.c -g ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714 --- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 35891 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35891action=edit Patch to make error more verbose Using this patch, we get a more verbose error: ...

[Bug debug/66714] gomp4: libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/atomic_capture-1.c -g ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714 --- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 35893 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35893action=edit Resulting trace. The from that cannot be found: ... decl_value_expr_lookup could not find mapping for

[Bug rtl-optimization/66626] [4.9/5/6 Regression] gcc.dg/torture/stackalign/non-local-goto-5.c segfaults w/ -mregparm=3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66626 --- Comment #14 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #8) (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7) Created attachment 35882 [details] A patch Uhuh... it's correct. We want to limit regparm value

[Bug tree-optimization/66612] [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/20050830-1.c scan-assembler bdn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612 --- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #3) stwx 10,8,9 - *(int*)(r8+r9)=r10 I am wondering how should we handle this failure. Create a new doloop test and change this one testing the

[Bug testsuite/66734] Many MPX tests are skipped

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66734 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Since check_effective_target_mpx caches the result, if the first MPX check fails, none of MPX tests will run.

[Bug c++/66735] New: [C++14] lambda init-capture fails for const references

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66735 Bug ID: 66735 Summary: [C++14] lambda init-capture fails for const references Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug rtl-optimization/66626] [4.9/5/6 Regression] gcc.dg/torture/stackalign/non-local-goto-5.c segfaults w/ -mregparm=3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66626 --- Comment #15 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #14) Created attachment 35882 [details] A patch Uhuh... it's correct. We want to limit regparm value with local_regparm. Please note

[Bug tree-optimization/66612] [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/20050830-1.c scan-assembler bdn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612 --- Comment #2 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Hi, I had a look of generated assembly. The old code is as below: .file 20050830-1.c .machine power4 .section.toc,aw .section.text

[Bug tree-optimization/66612] [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/20050830-1.c scan-assembler bdn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612 --- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org --- stwx 10,8,9 - *(int*)(r8+r9)=r10

[Bug debug/66714] gomp4: libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/atomic_capture-1.c -g ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714 --- Comment #9 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 35895 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35895action=edit patch to trace garbage collection

[Bug tree-optimization/66720] gcc.dg/vect/pr48052.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66720 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- It misses at _least_ dg-require-effective-target vect_int_mult (not sure if that also includes the required vect_int)

[Bug tree-optimization/66719] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-32.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66719 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED

[Bug debug/66714] gomp4: libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/atomic_capture-1.c -g ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714 --- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 35890 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35890action=edit patch to detect problem earlier Using this patch, we can trigger the problem earlier: ... In file

[Bug tree-optimization/66719] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-32.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66719 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Jul 2 08:38:42 2015 New Revision: 225303 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225303root=gccview=rev Log: 2015-07-02 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de

[Bug testsuite/65944] [5/6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65276: undefined reference to std2::exception::~exception()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65944 --- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #6) Since this fix, I am observing this regression on arm* targets: Please see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg01240.html

[Bug tree-optimization/66721] [6 regression] gcc.target/i386/pr61403.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66721 --- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) Yes, this is know. I thought we had a PR about this already but I can't find it. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66510#c2

[Bug tree-optimization/66612] [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/20050830-1.c scan-assembler bdn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612 --- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Hmm, (In reply to amker from comment #4) (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #3) stwx 10,8,9 - *(int*)(r8+r9)=r10 I am wondering how should we handle this failure. Create a new doloop

[Bug debug/66714] gomp4: libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/atomic_capture-1.c -g ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714 --- Comment #2 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 35889 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35889action=edit Add testcase, no need to set --target_board=unix/-O2/-g $ make -k -j5 check-target-libgomp

[Bug c/66736] float rounding differences when using constant literal versus variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66736 --- Comment #2 from dhekir at gmail dot com --- Isn't the library implementation of log10f used to compute the literal constants generated in the assembly code? Would it then be a double precision result that would be precomputed and rounded to

[Bug debug/66714] gomp4: libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/atomic_capture-1.c -g ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714 --- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 35892 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35892action=edit patch to trace decl_value_expr_insert Using this patch, we trace decl_value_expr_insert

[Bug debug/66714] gomp4: libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/atomic_capture-1.c -g ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714 --- Comment #8 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 35894 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35894action=edit patch to check overwrite This patch checks whether hash element is accidentally overwritten by

[Bug debug/66714] gomp4: libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/atomic_capture-1.c -g ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714 --- Comment #11 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- The test passes with: /* { dg-additional-options --param ggc-min-expand=10 --param ggc-min-heapsize=10 } */

[Bug rtl-optimization/66626] [4.9/5/6 Regression] gcc.dg/torture/stackalign/non-local-goto-5.c segfaults w/ -mregparm=3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66626 --- Comment #18 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #16) (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13) These simply won't work to together. Since we must keep LRA, we should remove

[Bug c/66740] omp simd reduction miscompiles at -O3 with AVX (recent regression)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66740 --- Comment #2 from tprince at computer dot org --- $ gcc -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=gcc COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/gcc6.0/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-cygwin/6.0.0/lt o-wrapper.exe Target: x86_64-unknown-cygwin Configured with:

[Bug middle-end/66741] loops not fused nor vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66741 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- I don't see where we inline-expand __builtin_tolower at all.

[Bug debug/66714] gomp4: libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/atomic_capture-1.c -g ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66714 --- Comment #10 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 35896 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35896action=edit Updated trace So the mapping we cannot find: ... decl_value_expr_lookup could not find mapping for

[Bug ipa/66738] [5/6 Regression] optimizer bug related to exceptions and static symbols

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66738 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug ipa/66738] [5/6 Regression] optimizer bug related to exceptions and static symbols

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66738 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- -fno-devirtualize fixes it.

[Bug c/66613] error in evaluationg cexp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66613 --- Comment #5 from BENAÏSSA ka_bena at yahoo dot fr --- Thank you for your mail.I do not know where is the error but after execution I do not have the good result. anyway! Compile Flags:   -std=c99 -Warray-bounds  -Wall  -Wextra -Waddress  

[Bug tree-optimization/66738] New: [5/6 Regression] optimizer bug related to exceptions and static symbols

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66738 Bug ID: 66738 Summary: [5/6 Regression] optimizer bug related to exceptions and static symbols Product: gcc Version: 5.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/66739] New: [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/subs.c scan-assembler subs\tw[0-9]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66739 Bug ID: 66739 Summary: [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/subs.c scan-assembler subs\tw[0-9] Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/66739] [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/subs.c scan-assembler subs\tw[0-9]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66739 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at gcc

[Bug tree-optimization/66740] [6 Regression] omp simd reduction miscompiles at -O3 with AVX (recent regression)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66740 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug c/66740] omp simd reduction miscompiles at -O3 with AVX (recent regression)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66740 --- Comment #3 from tprince at computer dot org --- $ gcc -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=gcc COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/gcc6.0/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-cygwin/6.0.0/lt o-wrapper.exe Target: x86_64-unknown-cygwin Configured with:

[Bug rtl-optimization/66626] [4.9/5/6 Regression] gcc.dg/torture/stackalign/non-local-goto-5.c segfaults w/ -mregparm=3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66626 --- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- non local goto, nested function and regparm == 3 are incompatible. Is that possible to detect non local goto is used inside ix86_function_regparm?

[Bug rtl-optimization/66626] [4.9/5/6 Regression] gcc.dg/torture/stackalign/non-local-goto-5.c segfaults w/ -mregparm=3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66626 --- Comment #16 from Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13) These simply won't work to together. Since we must keep LRA, we should remove ix86_static_chain_on_stack. ... or LRA notes that static chain

[Bug tree-optimization/53947] [meta-bug] vectorizer missed-optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947 Bug 53947 depends on bug 65946, which changed state. Bug 65946 Summary: Simple loop with if-statement not vectorized https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65946 What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/65946] Simple loop with if-statement not vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65946 alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug c/66740] omp simd reduction miscompiles at -O3 with AVX (recent regression)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66740 --- Comment #1 from tprince at computer dot org --- Created attachment 35898 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35898action=edit C source

[Bug tree-optimization/66739] [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/subs.c scan-assembler subs\tw[0-9]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66739 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|

[Bug c/66740] New: omp simd reduction miscompiles at -O3 with AVX (recent regression)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66740 Bug ID: 66740 Summary: omp simd reduction miscompiles at -O3 with AVX (recent regression) Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/66741] New: loops not fused nor vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66741 Bug ID: 66741 Summary: loops not fused nor vectorized Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c/66736] float rounding differences when using constant literal versus variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66736 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to dhekir from comment #2) Isn't the library implementation of log10f used to compute the literal constants generated in the assembly code? Would it then be a double

[Bug middle-end/66741] loops not fused nor vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66741 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug tree-optimization/66739] [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/subs.c scan-assembler subs\tw[0-9]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66739 --- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org --- fd425e6293fb8306af74b3048352d97e1d67b922 is the first bad commit git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@225249 138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4

[Bug c/66613] error in evaluationg cexp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66613 --- Comment #4 from BENAÏSSA ka_bena at yahoo dot fr --- Thank you for your mail. Compile Flags:  -std=c99 -Warray-bounds  -Wall  -Wextra  -Waddress  -Wbad-function-cast  -Wformat  -Wformat-contains-nul  -Wformat-extra-args -Wformat-nonliteral

[Bug middle-end/66741] loops not fused nor vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66741 --- Comment #1 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer aldot at gcc dot gnu.org --- i.e. maybe something more along the lines of $ cat EOF | gcc-5 -xc -S - -o - -Ofast -fomit-frame-pointer -minline-all-stringops -mstringop-strategy=unrolled_loop

[Bug libstdc++/66742] New: abort on sorting list with custom compiler that is not stateless

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66742 Bug ID: 66742 Summary: abort on sorting list with custom compiler that is not stateless Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/61649] fixincludes update for solaris___restrict in sys/feature_tests.h on Illumos

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61649 --- Comment #5 from Richard PALO richard at netbsd dot org --- kind reminder to push these two patches: 1) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33031 2) and https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61649#c1 (*) * NB

[Bug fortran/52846] [F2008] Support submodules

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52846 --- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: pault Date: Thu Jul 2 20:39:56 2015 New Revision: 225354 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225354root=gccview=rev Log: 2015-07-02 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org

[Bug libstdc++/66742] abort on sorting list with custom compiler that is not stateless

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66742 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/66745] New: ice in check_unstripped_args

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66745 Bug ID: 66745 Summary: ice in check_unstripped_args Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/66745] ice in check_unstripped_args

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66745 --- Comment #1 from David Binderman dcb314 at hotmail dot com --- Created attachment 35900 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35900action=edit C++ source code, compressed with xz

[Bug tree-optimization/66612] [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/20050830-1.c scan-assembler bdn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612 amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/37072] -mfancy-math-387 should be the default in FreeBSD

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37072 --- Comment #3 from gerald at gcc dot gnu.org gerald at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: gerald Date: Fri Jul 3 01:35:18 2015 New Revision: 225367 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225367root=gccview=rev Log: PR target/37072 *

[Bug c/66747] New: The commit r225260 broke the builds of the mips-{mti,img}-linux-gnu tool chains.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66747 Bug ID: 66747 Summary: The commit r225260 broke the builds of the mips-{mti,img}-linux-gnu tool chains. Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/66746] Failure to compile #include x86intrin.h with -miamcu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66746 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug target/66746] Failure to compile #include x86intrin.h with -miamcu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66746 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- A patch is posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg00174.html

[Bug c++/66743] [5/6 regression] ICE: tree check: expected record_type or union_type or qual_union_type, have underlying_type in for_each_template_parm_r, at cp/pt.c:8234

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66743 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jason Date: Fri Jul 3 00:45:43 2015 New Revision: 225366 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225366root=gccview=rev Log: PR c++/66743 * pt.c

[Bug c++/66743] [5/6 regression] ICE: tree check: expected record_type or union_type or qual_union_type, have underlying_type in for_each_template_parm_r, at cp/pt.c:8234

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66743 --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jason Date: Fri Jul 3 00:45:34 2015 New Revision: 225365 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225365root=gccview=rev Log: PR c++/66743 * pt.c

[Bug c/50584] No warning for passing small array to C99 static array declarator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50584 Serg Iv sergei.ivn+bugzilla at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/66612] [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/20050830-1.c scan-assembler bdn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66612 --- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- On powerpc32, the address candidate doesn't have the period precision to eliminate conditional iv. That's why bdn is generated. On powerpc64, the address candidate does have the period precision

[Bug target/66746] New: Failure to compile #include x86intrin.h with -miamcu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66746 Bug ID: 66746 Summary: Failure to compile #include x86intrin.h with -miamcu Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c/50584] No warning for passing small array to C99 static array declarator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50584 --- Comment #8 from Serg Iv sergei.ivn+bugzilla at gmail dot com --- Forgot to say that C99 standard has the same sentences. Useful links: C99 draft http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1256.pdf C11 draft

[Bug c++/66743] New: ICE on formerly working code

class T struct type_is { using type = T; }; template class T using underlying_type = type_is__underlying_type(T); int main( ) { return 0; } Compiler version: concepts-g++ (GCC) 6.0.0 20150702 (experimental) Command line (numerous -W options elided): concepts-g++ -Og -std=c++1z

[Bug fortran/56520] Syntax error causes misleading message: Invalid character in name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56520 --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Thu Jul 2 17:29:04 2015 New Revision: 225349 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225349root=gccview=rev Log: 2015-07-02 Steven G. Kargl ka...@gcc.gnu.org PR

[Bug rtl-optimization/66706] Redundant bitmask instruction on x (n 32)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66706 Segher Boessenkool segher at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/66119] [5/6 Regression] in optimization of avx-code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66119 --- Comment #11 from James Greenhalgh jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org --- There is a patch for this on the Mailing List. Jeff has approved the code-changes and I need an Ack for the test-case (ping:

[Bug rtl-optimization/66706] Redundant bitmask instruction on x (n 32)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66706 --- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool segher at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: segher Date: Thu Jul 2 16:27:11 2015 New Revision: 225344 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225344root=gccview=rev Log: PR rtl-optimization/66706 *

[Bug fortran/66545] ICE on using undefined parameter/variable values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66545 --- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Thu Jul 2 17:02:10 2015 New Revision: 225348 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225348root=gccview=rev Log: 2015-07-02 Steven G. Kargl ka...@gcc.gnu.org PR

[Bug tree-optimization/37239] peeling last iteration of a = loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37239 Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||26163

[Bug target/59767] __atomic_load_n with __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST should result in a memory barrier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59767 James Almer jamrial at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamrial at gmail

[Bug debug/66728] [5/6 Regression] CONST_WIDE_INT causes corrupted DWARF debug info

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66728 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/66743] ICE on formerly working code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66743 --- Comment #1 from W E Brown webrown.cpp at gmail dot com --- Further reduced test case: template class T using u_t = __underlying_type(T); int main( ) { }

[Bug debug/66728] [5/6 Regression] CONST_WIDE_INT causes corrupted DWARF debug info

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66728 --- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Testing a patch. It involves tightening the mode of the rtx returned by rtl_for_decl_location, as well as new asserts, so some fallout is likely...

[Bug preprocessor/53690] [C++11] \u0000 and \U00000000 are wrongly encoded as U+0001.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53690 --- Comment #10 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Thu Jul 2 18:54:41 2015 New Revision: 225353 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225353root=gccview=rev Log: /libcpp 2015-07-02 Paolo Carlini

[Bug preprocessor/53690] [C++11] \u0000 and \U00000000 are wrongly encoded as U+0001.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53690 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug c++/66743] [5/6 regression] ICE: tree check: expected record_type or union_type or qual_union_type, have underlying_type in for_each_template_parm_r, at cp/pt.c:8234

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66743 Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug tree-optimization/66729] Segfault starting with r224967

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729 Michael Meissner meissner at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||meissner

[Bug libstdc++/66742] abort on sorting list with custom compiler that is not stateless

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66742 Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug fortran/66725] Issue with silent conversion int to char, ICE if int too large

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66725 --- Comment #2 from Gerhard Steinmetz gerhard.steinmetz.fort...@t-online.de --- A more extensive list of different cases : close (1, status=257) open (1, access=257) open (1, action=257) open (1, asynchronous=257) open (1,

[Bug bootstrap/66744] New: Bootstrap failure due to conflicting access() on i686-w64-mingw32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66744 Bug ID: 66744 Summary: Bootstrap failure due to conflicting access() on i686-w64-mingw32 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug bootstrap/66744] [6 Regression] Bootstrap failure due to conflicting access() on i686-w64-mingw32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66744 Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug tree-optimization/66729] Segfault starting with r224967

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66729 --- Comment #6 from Pat Haugen pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #4) Hmm, bootstrap succeeded for me on gcc110. I used r225278, but I don't think anything significant changed between the two.

[Bug fortran/66725] Issue with silent conversion int to char, ICE if int too large

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66725 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4