[Bug ipa/67428] lto1: fatal error: test.elf.ltrans0.o: section is missing with -flto -fipa-pta

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67428 --- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay --- Created attachment 36279 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36279=edit e.c (C-source 2/3)

[Bug target/61578] [4.9 regression] Code size increase for ARM thumb compared to 4.8.x when compiling with -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578 --- Comment #22 from Vladimir Makarov --- Author: vmakarov Date: Tue Sep 1 19:37:52 2015 New Revision: 227382 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227382=gcc=rev Log: 2015-09-01 Vladimir Makarov PR target/61578

[Bug fortran/48244] iso-c-binding support missing on NetBSD (with patch)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48244 --- Comment #11 from Kai-Uwe Eckhardt --- > Does this mean that this PR can be closed? If yes, with which resolution? It is still unresolved. The commited patch requires pr64271 and pr67424 to be resolved first. I no longer run NetBSD and quite

[Bug driver/67425] New: -frandom-seed documentation doesn't match code, incomplete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67425 Bug ID: 67425 Summary: -frandom-seed documentation doesn't match code, incomplete Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/67427] New: [concepts] Subsumption dependence on template parameter ordering

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67427 Bug ID: 67427 Summary: [concepts] Subsumption dependence on template parameter ordering Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug ipa/67428] lto1: fatal error: test.elf.ltrans0.o: section is missing with -flto -fipa-pta

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67428 --- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay --- Created attachment 36278 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36278=edit Bug.c (C-source 1/3)

[Bug c++/67324] Failures in Assignable concept's requires-expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67324 Casey Carter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||Casey at Carter dot net --- Comment #1

[Bug c++/67426] New: Ambiguous overload between different function templates, where one has non-deduced arg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67426 Bug ID: 67426 Summary: Ambiguous overload between different function templates, where one has non-deduced arg Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug sanitizer/67258] "invalid vptr" false positive from ubsan for virtual inheritance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67258 Avi Kivity changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug ipa/67428] lto1: fatal error: test.elf.ltrans0.o: section is missing with -flto -fipa-pta

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67428 --- Comment #3 from Georg-Johann Lay --- Created attachment 36280 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36280=edit i.c (C-source 3/3)

[Bug fortran/67429] New: [5/6 Regression] Missing part of error messages.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429 Bug ID: 67429 Summary: [5/6 Regression] Missing part of error messages. Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug ipa/67428] lto1: fatal error: test.elf.ltrans0.o: section is missing with -flto -fipa-pta

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67428 --- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay --- Created attachment 36281 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36281=edit output of gcc-5.2

[Bug fortran/67429] [5/6 Regression] Missing part of error messages.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug ipa/67428] New: lto1: fatal error: test.elf.ltrans0.o: section is missing with -flto -fipa-pta

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67428 Bug ID: 67428 Summary: lto1: fatal error: test.elf.ltrans0.o: section is missing with -flto -fipa-pta Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug ipa/67428] lto1: fatal error: test.elf.ltrans0.o: section is missing with -flto -fipa-pta

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67428 --- Comment #5 from Georg-Johann Lay --- Created attachment 36282 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36282=edit output of avr-gcc-6 (SVN trunk 227033)

[Bug target/67417] powerpc64 bootstrap with -mcmodel=small results in linker error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67417 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ada/48002] internal error on calling inherited, overloaded and abstract subprograms with string literal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48002 yuta tomino changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/67174] [6 regression] gfortran.dg/do_iterator.f90 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67174 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug ada/48039] Legal program rejected, a formal function is not visible in generic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48039 yuta tomino changed: What|Removed |Added Version|4.5.2 |6.0 Known to fail|

[Bug fortran/67429] [5/6 Regression] Missing part of error messages.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429 --- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- Even with the original patch applied to r227391, I cannot reproduce the error that you get. On x86_64-linux-gnu, I get: Starting program: /home/manuel/test1/226953M/build/gcc/f951

[Bug rtl-optimization/42497] Generate conditional tail calls .

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42497 Peter Cordes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||peter at cordes dot ca --- Comment #3

[Bug ada/48013] generic instantiation breaks the restriction of No_Elaboration_Code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48013 yuta tomino changed: What|Removed |Added Version|4.5.2 |6.0 Known to fail|

[Bug target/67417] powerpc64 bootstrap with -mcmodel=small results in linker error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67417 --- Comment #6 from Alan Modra --- Author: amodra Date: Tue Sep 1 23:25:48 2015 New Revision: 227389 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227389=gcc=rev Log: [RS6000] Weak functions may not be file local A weak symbol defined in the current

[Bug fortran/67429] [5/6 Regression] Missing part of error messages.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429 --- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #7) > The patch for PR65045 is the simplest manifestation that I have found. I am > very grateful to Dominique for posting this PR because the problem has been >

[Bug fortran/67429] [5/6 Regression] Missing part of error messages.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 08:05:33PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429 > > --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > > So, why isn't this a

[Bug fortran/67429] [5/6 Regression] Missing part of error messages.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429 --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > It's the same piece of code causing the problem. One > needs to go to PR65045 to get the code, so this PR > is superfluous. When the ICE is fixed, then > error message should be addressed. The

[Bug fortran/67429] [5/6 Regression] Missing part of error messages.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug target/67417] powerpc64 bootstrap with -mcmodel=small results in linker error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67417 --- Comment #5 from Alan Modra --- Author: amodra Date: Tue Sep 1 23:04:58 2015 New Revision: 227387 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227387=gcc=rev Log: [RS6000] Weak functions may not be file local A weak symbol defined in the current

[Bug fortran/67429] [5/6 Regression] Missing part of error messages.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/67417] powerpc64 bootstrap with -mcmodel=small results in linker error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67417 --- Comment #4 from Alan Modra --- Author: amodra Date: Tue Sep 1 23:03:19 2015 New Revision: 227386 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227386=gcc=rev Log: [RS6000] Weak functions may not be file local A weak symbol defined in the current

[Bug fortran/67429] [5/6 Regression] Missing part of error messages.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- > > Please read comment 0. > I read comment #0. THERE IS NO CODE THERE. THERE IS NO CODE ATTACHED TO THIS PR. One needs to go to PR65045 to get the code that is causing the error message. Ergo, this is a

[Bug fortran/67429] [5/6 Regression] Missing part of error messages.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429 --- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #5) > > > > Please read comment 0. > > > > I read comment #0. > > THERE IS NO CODE THERE. > > THERE IS NO CODE ATTACHED TO THIS PR. > > One needs to go to PR65045 to

[Bug fortran/67429] [5/6 Regression] Missing part of error messages.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67429 --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > So, why isn't this a duplicate of PR65045? Because PR65045 is about an ICE and this PR is about missing text in the error messages.

[Bug libstdc++/66624] libstdc++ iostream uninitialized data

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66624 TC changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com --- Comment #5 from TC

[Bug tree-optimization/67351] Missed optimisation on 64-bit field compared to 32-bit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67351 --- Comment #8 from hs.naveen2u at gmail dot com --- Patch that implements the optimization referred by Richard and Andrew. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg00014.html

[Bug middle-end/67418] resolution to constant fails between pointer on stack and pointer within argument structure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67418 --- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Thomé --- ok thanks. Indeed it's more an enhancement request then.

[Bug fortran/50539] Internal error gfc_match_entry(): Bad state (r178939)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50539 --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Fixed by revisions r223321 for trunk (6.0) and r223405 for the 5-branch as expected for a duplicate of pr66044.

[Bug libfortran/35731] libfortran should use gettext to for localized error messages

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35731 Francois-Xavier Coudert changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/67414] [5/6 Regression] Error message on failed allocate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67414 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.3 Summary|[5 Regression]

[Bug regression/67415] [5/6 Regression] -mcpu= breaks -print-file-name for ARM crosscompilers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67415 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||arm* Host|

[Bug middle-end/67409] [5/6 Regression] tree-cfg.c dereferences a NULL pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67409 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid Known to work|

[Bug target/67305] [6 Regression] gcc.c-torture/compile/20121027-1.c ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67305 --- Comment #7 from Jiong Wang --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6) > The predicate here is "neon_permissive_struct_operand", and indeed > it is _very_ permissive ;-) > > This goes through neon_vector_mem_operand(op, 2, false)

[Bug middle-end/67409] [5/6 Regression] tree-cfg.c dereferences a NULL pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67409 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- We stopped rejecting the code in r218328.

[Bug c++/67409] [5/6 Regression] tree-cfg.c dereferences a NULL pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67409 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||paolo at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/67418] resolution to constant fails between pointer on stack and pointer within argument structure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67418 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug c++/67411] [5/6 Regression] internal compiler error: in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:13473

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67411 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.3

[Bug c++/61753] poor diagnostic for constructor definition that starts with 'const'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61753 --- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Tue Sep 1 08:39:47 2015 New Revision: 227361 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227361=gcc=rev Log: /cp 2015-09-01 Paolo Carlini PR

[Bug c++/61753] poor diagnostic for constructor definition that starts with 'const'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61753 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libfortran/34745] collect array bounds checking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34745 Francois-Xavier Coudert changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug target/67417] powerpc64 bootstrap with -mcmodel=small results in linker error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67417 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- This is simply an inline class method which should be in a COMDAT section. The linker is free to pick either.

[Bug c/67418] New: resolution to constant fails between pointer on stack and pointer within argument structure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67418 Bug ID: 67418 Summary: resolution to constant fails between pointer on stack and pointer within argument structure Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/67413] Complex NOP expanded to several operations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67413 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/50555] synonymous namelist/statement function dummy argument not allowed (r178939)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50555 --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > I found it fixed in 5.2.0 and maybe already in 4.8.2 Are you sure of that? I am expecting an error for the test in comment 0, but I get none with trunk (6.0), 5.2, and 4.8: [Book15] f90/bug% gfc

[Bug target/67031] avr-gcc internal compiler error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67031 Senthil Kumar Selvaraj changed: What|Removed |Added CC||senthil_kumar.selvaraj@atme

[Bug middle-end/67421] New: gcc.dg/wide-shift-64.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67421 Bug ID: 67421 Summary: gcc.dg/wide-shift-64.c FAILs Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end

[Bug c++/67409] [5/6 Regression] tree-cfg.c dereferences a NULL pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67409 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC|paolo at gcc dot gnu.org | --- Comment #5 from Paolo

[Bug bootstrap/67373] Can't compile gcc snapshot for avr target with mingw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67373 Senthil Kumar Selvaraj changed: What|Removed |Added CC||senthil_kumar.selvaraj@atme

[Bug libfortran/67412] gfortran.dg/execute_command_line_2.f90 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67412 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |SUSPENDED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/67312] [6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in expand_expr_real_1 (expr.c:9561) with -ftree-coalesce-vars

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67312 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/67419] gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_2.F90 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419 Francois-Xavier Coudert changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/67419] New: gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_2.F90 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419 Bug ID: 67419 Summary: gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_2.F90 FAILs Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug fortran/67420] New: gfortran.dg/norm2_3.f90 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67420 Bug ID: 67420 Summary: gfortran.dg/norm2_3.f90 FAILs Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug fortran/67420] gfortran.dg/norm2_3.f90 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67420 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug libfortran/67412] gfortran.dg/execute_command_line_2.f90 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67412 --- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert --- > (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2) >> I know, but only on Solaris 12. Also, there's >>

[Bug libfortran/67412] gfortran.dg/execute_command_line_2.f90 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67412 --- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth --- Author: ro Date: Tue Sep 1 11:50:19 2015 New Revision: 227367 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227367=gcc=rev Log: XFAIL gfortran.dg/execute_command_line_2.f90 (PR libfortran/67412) PR

[Bug libfortran/67412] gfortran.dg/execute_command_line_2.f90 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67412 --- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #1 from Francois-Xavier Coudert --- > (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0) >> It seems the old buggy Solaris /bin/sh is the culprit. According to the >> OpenSolaris

[Bug middle-end/67421] gcc.dg/wide-shift-64.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67421 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug fortran/67422] New: memcpy incorrectly used to copy (potentially) overlapping assumed-size arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67422 Bug ID: 67422 Summary: memcpy incorrectly used to copy (potentially) overlapping assumed-size arrays Product: gcc Version: 5.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/67431] New: ALLOCATE with SOURCE ignores overloaded assignment operator and uses intrinsic when copying values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67431 Bug ID: 67431 Summary: ALLOCATE with SOURCE ignores overloaded assignment operator and uses intrinsic when copying values Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/67430] New: reallocate lhs with overloaded assignment operators causes memory error and wrong size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67430 Bug ID: 67430 Summary: reallocate lhs with overloaded assignment operators causes memory error and wrong size Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/67312] [6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in expand_expr_real_1 (expr.c:9561) with -ftree-coalesce-vars

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67312 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug middle-end/67340] [6 Regression] ICE: in convert_move, at expr.c:279

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67340 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/67295] [ARM][6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/arm/builtin-bswap-1.c scan-assembler-times revshne\\t 1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67295 --- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva --- Still no luck on a x86_64-linux-gnu build machine, running ../configure --target=arm-none-eabi --disable-shared --disable-nls --disable-threads --disable-tls --enable-checking=yes

[Bug other/67424] New: libcilkcrts fails to build on NetBSD

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67424 Bug ID: 67424 Summary: libcilkcrts fails to build on NetBSD Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: other

[Bug fortran/50555] synonymous namelist/statement function dummy argument not allowed (r178939)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50555 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|NEW Resolution|FIXED

[Bug target/67405] ICE on invalid use of struct on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67405 --- Comment #1 from Ilya Enkovich --- Author: ienkovich Date: Tue Sep 1 14:38:42 2015 New Revision: 227373 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227373=gcc=rev Log: gcc/ PR target/67405 * tree-chkp.c (chkp_find_bound_slots_1):

[Bug libstdc++/67403] std::regex is not matching

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67403 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/67408] assumes that __gthread_mutex_t and__gthread_recursive_mutex_t are the same types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67408 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Created attachment 36276 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36276=edit Handle recursive mutexes with different types. Does this work for your target?

[Bug preprocessor/55115] [4.9/5/6 Regression] missing headers as fatal breaks cproto logic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55115 RGomes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||Robert.Gomes at igt dot com --- Comment #16

[Bug libstdc++/67408] assumes that __gthread_mutex_t and__gthread_recursive_mutex_t are the same types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67408 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/67408] assumes that __gthread_mutex_t and__gthread_recursive_mutex_t are the same types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67408 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- I didn't think that code was usable on non-POSIX systems, and for POSIX they are the same type. I'll see what I can do about it.

[Bug regression/67415] [5/6 Regression] -mcpu= breaks -print-file-name for ARM crosscompilers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67415 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/67419] gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_2.F90 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419 --- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert --- (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2) > The result is identical for both the mainline libgfortran.so.3 and the > bundled gcc 4.8 libgfortran.so.3, so this might well be a libm

[Bug fortran/67419] gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_2.F90 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419 --- Comment #7 from Francois-Xavier Coudert --- (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #5) > If I drop the __builtin_ and include and instead, I > get the expected Then the math.h header is playing tricks and GCC is not

[Bug fortran/67422] memcpy incorrectly used to copy (potentially) overlapping assumed-size arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67422 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/67422] memcpy incorrectly used to copy (potentially) overlapping assumed-size arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67422 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/67295] [ARM][6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/arm/builtin-bswap-1.c scan-assembler-times revshne\\t 1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67295 --- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #1) > I get exactly the same code with r226900, before the copyrename patch: > > cmp r1, #0 > rev16ne r0, r0 > uxthne r0,

[Bug target/67417] powerpc64 bootstrap with -mcmodel=small results in linker error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67417 --- Comment #3 from Alan Modra --- Yes, exactly. When a COMDAT group in another file is chosen, the rs6000 predicate current_file_function_operand gets the wrong answer. COMDAT group functions use weak symbols, and weak symbols more generally

[Bug fortran/67419] gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_2.F90 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419 --- Comment #6 from Francois-Xavier Coudert --- (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #4) >> int main (void) >> { >> long double x; >> x = 789.1356; >> __builtin_printf ("%.30Lg\n", x); >> __builtin_printf ("%.30Lg\n",

[Bug fortran/67419] gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_2.F90 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419 --- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #6 from Francois-Xavier Coudert --- > (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #4) >>> int main (void) >>> { >>> long double x; >>> x = 789.1356; >>>

[Bug fortran/67420] gfortran.dg/norm2_3.f90 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67420 Francois-Xavier Coudert changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/61578] [4.9 regression] Code size increase for ARM thumb compared to 4.8.x when compiling with -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578 --- Comment #20 from Vladimir Makarov --- (In reply to Fredrik Hederstierna from comment #19) > I'm not sure why bug 59535 was closed, same problem might still exist, quote: > > > Zhenqiang Chen 2014-09-03 06:17:44 UTC > > > > Here is a small

[Bug target/61578] [4.9 regression] Code size increase for ARM thumb compared to 4.8.x when compiling with -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578 --- Comment #21 from Fredrik Hederstierna --- Great, thanks! Just a note as you are looking into this, neither GCC 4.8.x nor GCC 5.2.x produces the optimal code I think for this case, isn't it better

[Bug fortran/67422] memcpy incorrectly used to copy (potentially) overlapping assumed-size arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67422 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- > memcpy is not guaranteed to work if the memory locations for a and b overlap, > which could be the case here. In Fortran code, they cannot be the same location and if they are then it is undefined code.

[Bug fortran/67419] gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_2.F90 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419 --- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- >> --- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert >> --- >> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2) >>> The result is identical for both the mainline libgfortran.so.3

[Bug fortran/67419] gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_2.F90 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419 --- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #1 from Francois-Xavier Coudert --- > Can you run the following test and paste the output here? [...] Sure: 16 789.1356201171875

[Bug fortran/67419] gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_2.F90 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419 --- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert --- > (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2) >> The result is identical for both the mainline libgfortran.so.3 and the

[Bug fortran/67419] gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_2.F90 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419 --- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> --- >> --- Comment #7 from Francois-Xavier Coudert >> --- >> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de

[Bug fortran/67419] gfortran.dg/large_real_kind_2.F90 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419 --- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #7 from Francois-Xavier Coudert --- > (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #5) >> If I drop the __builtin_ and include and instead, I >> get the

[Bug fortran/50555] synonymous namelist/statement function dummy argument not allowed (r178939)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50555 --- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca --- Sorry, you are right, the compiler should emit an error message instead it wrongly accepts the code. I was confused, this time the right behaviour is to emit an error message.

  1   2   >