[Bug c/67606] New: Missing optimization: load possible return value before early-out test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67606 Bug ID: 67606 Summary: Missing optimization: load possible return value before early-out test Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/67606] Missing optimization: load possible return value before early-out test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67606 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/67607] New: Failure to perform constant folding through type conversion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67607 Bug ID: 67607 Summary: Failure to perform constant folding through type conversion Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization

[Bug tree-optimization/67607] Failure to perform constant folding through type conversion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67607 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --- In general, for unsigned x, 1+(unsigned long)(x-1) can be simplified to x only if we know that x!=0, so we would need VRP information. Maybe this could be handled as part of the type-promotion work. VRP could

[Bug tree-optimization/67607] Failure to perform constant folding through type conversion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67607 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/52846] [F2008] Support submodules

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52846 --- Comment #27 from Paul Thomas --- Author: pault Date: Thu Sep 17 09:09:34 2015 New Revision: 227855 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227855=gcc=rev Log: 2015-09-17 Paul Thomas PR fortran/52846 PR

[Bug fortran/67588] module.c heap use after free

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67588 --- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas --- Author: pault Date: Thu Sep 17 09:09:34 2015 New Revision: 227855 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227855=gcc=rev Log: 2015-09-17 Paul Thomas PR fortran/52846 PR

[Bug bootstrap/67597] [6 Regression] profiledbootstrap failure on ppc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67597 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/67588] module.c heap use after free

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67588 --- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca --- I believe that use_list = module_list; at line module.c:805 is useless and can be expunged.

[Bug regression/67609] New: [Regression] Generates wrong code for SSE2 _mm_load_pd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609 Bug ID: 67609 Summary: [Regression] Generates wrong code for SSE2 _mm_load_pd Product: gcc Version: 5.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Priority: P3

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67351 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug regression/67609] [Regression] Generates wrong code for SSE2 _mm_load_pd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609 --- Comment #1 from Joel Yliluoma --- For the record, changing _mm_load_pd(v) into _mm_set_pd(v[1],v[0]) will coax GCC into generating correct code. The bug is related to _mm_load_pd().

[Bug testsuite/66530] libstdc++ testsuite links to incorrect shared libstdc++ library

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66530 --- Comment #8 from Jennifer Yao --- I know this is horribly belated, but I *just* got around to testing the patch proper, and I'm afraid to say that it does not appear to work. (My last comment verified that setting PATH instead of

[Bug rtl-optimization/66790] Invalid uninitialized register handling in REE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bonzini at gnu dot org,

[Bug c++/67608] New: ICE when capturing a local 2D array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67608 Bug ID: 67608 Summary: ICE when capturing a local 2D array Product: gcc Version: 4.9.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/67608] ICE when capturing a local 2D array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67608 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/66790] Invalid uninitialized register handling in REE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790 --- Comment #18 from Bernd Schmidt --- FWIW I did some googling to refresh my memory, and this may be helpful: www.seas.harvard.edu/courses/cs252/2011sp/slides/Lec02-Dataflow.pdf It looks like you want exactly the available expressions problem

[Bug bootstrap/67597] [6 Regression] profiledbootstrap failure on ppc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67597 --- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #4) > Mine. AFAICT this is fixed in the git branch aoliva/pr64164, that moves rtl > allocation of parms and results back to assign_parms. Thanks. I can

[Bug middle-end/67490] [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/pr16458-1.c scan-assembler-not cmpw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67490 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/65958] -fstack-check breaks alloca on architectures using generic stack checking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65958 --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou --- Author: ebotcazou Date: Thu Sep 17 11:06:57 2015 New Revision: 227860 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227860=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/65958 * config/arm/linux-elf.h

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67351 Allan Jensen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/66790] Invalid uninitialized register handling in REE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790 --- Comment #19 from Paolo Bonzini --- LIVE provides live registers that MAY be initialized (are initialized on at least one path). The comments are all wrong! There's no code in GCC for must-initialized. Pierre's patch gets it right (except

[Bug fortran/67588] module.c heap use after free

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67588 --- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas --- (In reply to Vittorio Zecca from comment #5) > I believe that > > use_list = module_list; > > at line module.c:805 is useless and can be expunged. I don't think so Up to that point, use_list is set to

[Bug rtl-optimization/50749] Auto-inc-dec does not find subsequent contiguous mem accesses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50749 Urja Rannikko changed: What|Removed |Added CC||urjaman at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug fortran/67588] module.c heap use after free

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67588 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/66142] Loop is not vectorized because not sufficient support for GOMP_SIMD_LANE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66142 --- Comment #21 from Richard Biener --- Ok, so if we fix SCCVN further we hit its (designed) limitation with stmt walking not following backedges (but the use is in a loop and the def outside). We avoid doing the work to determine if sth is loop

[Bug c/67570] comparison rules fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67570 --- Comment #4 from BENAÏSSA ---  Thank you very much for your reply. Please do not take care of the first set of values for  MIN_NORMALIZED and in place you can test those new values.  MIN_NORMALIZED    1.755494 E-038  for float     

[Bug middle-end/67222] [4.9/5 Regression] ICE in gimple_call_arg with bogus posix_memalign

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67222 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Thu Sep 17 12:50:54 2015 New Revision: 227862 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227862=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/67222 * gimple-low.c (lower_stmt): Don't lower

[Bug target/67609] [5/6 Regression] Generates wrong code for SSE2 _mm_load_pd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-*-*

[Bug rtl-optimization/66790] Invalid uninitialized register handling in REE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790 --- Comment #20 from Kenneth Zadeck --- >> On second thoughts, for the first point, maybe a native speaker understands >> "an available definition on any path" as "an available definition on one >> path, >> whatever it is", in which case the

[Bug rtl-optimization/66790] Invalid uninitialized register handling in REE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790 --- Comment #21 from Eric Botcazou --- > LIVE provides live registers that MAY be initialized (are initialized on at > least one path). The comments are all wrong! > > There's no code in GCC for must-initialized. Pierre's patch gets it right

[Bug middle-end/67222] [4.9/5 Regression] ICE in gimple_call_arg with bogus posix_memalign

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67222 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/65913] [5 Regression] Linking failure without -latomic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65913 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.3 Summary|[5/6

[Bug sanitizer/67513] ASAN: Not optimal shadow value check (unlikely condition checked in fast path)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67513 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/67611] strcpy BUG

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67611 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/67588] module.c heap use after free

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67588 --- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca --- use_list is local to the function gfc_match_submodule and it is already reinitialized in the for statement at line 806. So there is a duplication. On return at line 812 it is then lost. Maybe optimization

[Bug rtl-optimization/66790] Invalid uninitialized register handling in REE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790 --- Comment #24 from Eric Botcazou --- Author: ebotcazou Date: Thu Sep 17 15:35:24 2015 New Revision: 227874 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227874=gcc=rev Log: PR rtl-optimization/66790 * df-problems.c (LIVE): Amend

[Bug rtl-optimization/66790] Invalid uninitialized register handling in REE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790 --- Comment #25 from Eric Botcazou --- Author: ebotcazou Date: Thu Sep 17 15:35:43 2015 New Revision: 227875 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227875=gcc=rev Log: PR rtl-optimization/66790 * df-problems.c (LIVE): Amend

[Bug libstdc++/65913] [5/6 Regression] Linking failure without -latomic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65913 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Sep 17 15:46:04 2015 New Revision: 227878 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227878=gcc=rev Log: Handle alignment in __atomic_is_lock_free gcc: 2015-09-17 Richard Henderson

[Bug c/67610] strcpy BUG

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67610 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Component|cp-tools

[Bug rtl-optimization/66790] Invalid uninitialized register handling in REE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790 --- Comment #26 from Eric Botcazou --- Author: ebotcazou Date: Thu Sep 17 15:35:58 2015 New Revision: 227876 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227876=gcc=rev Log: PR rtl-optimization/66790 * df-problems.c (LIVE): Amend

[Bug c/67610] strcpy BUG

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67610 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE --- Comment #3 from Andrew

[Bug c/67611] strcpy BUG

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67611 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 67610 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug target/67609] [5/6 Regression] Generates wrong code for SSE2 _mm_load_pd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3) > The doc says: > > When used as an lvalue, 'subreg' is a word-based accessor. > Storing to a 'subreg' modifies all the words of REG that >

[Bug libstdc++/65142] std::random_device Ignores Read Return Code (CVE-2015-5276)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65142 --- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Sep 17 15:06:42 2015 New Revision: 227872 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227872=gcc=rev Log: Make std::random_device retry after short reads PR libstdc++/65142

[Bug c/67611] New: strcpy BUG

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67611 Bug ID: 67611 Summary: strcpy BUG Product: gcc Version: 4.6.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unassigned at

[Bug target/67573] [SH] wrong code generated for libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/cxx11-shim_facets.cc at -mlra

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67573 --- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #7) > Fixed on trunk. > Oleg, now we can propose to make -mlra default on trunk. Nice, thank you!

[Bug target/67609] [5/6 Regression] Generates wrong code for SSE2 _mm_load_pd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609 --- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak --- The doc says: When used as an lvalue, 'subreg' is a word-based accessor. Storing to a 'subreg' modifies all the words of REG that overlap the 'subreg', but it leaves the other

[Bug rtl-optimization/66790] Invalid uninitialized register handling in REE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790 --- Comment #23 from Kenneth Zadeck --- This change to the doc looks fine to me.

[Bug tree-optimization/67612] New: Unable to vectorize DOT_PROD_EXPR (PMADDWD)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67612 Bug ID: 67612 Summary: Unable to vectorize DOT_PROD_EXPR (PMADDWD) Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug rtl-optimization/66790] Invalid uninitialized register handling in REE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790 --- Comment #22 from Eric Botcazou --- > A native English speaker would say that this could be written better. I > would suggest the term "on at least one path" and this is what a MAY problem > is generally defined as. Thanks. Here's a

[Bug target/67609] [5/6 Regression] Generates wrong code for SSE2 _mm_load_pd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- It does the "correct" thing for #include __m128d reg; void set_lower(float b) { float v[4]; _mm_store_pd((double *)v, reg); v[0] = b; reg = _mm_load_pd((double *)v); }

[Bug rtl-optimization/50749] Auto-inc-dec does not find subsequent contiguous mem accesses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50749 --- Comment #21 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to Urja Rannikko from comment #20) > I'll add a note here that this seems to also affect the AVR target when it > is under register pressure and cant use Z or Y registers which can do Z+n > /Y+n

[Bug fortran/67615] New: ICE on using arithmetic if with array instead of scalar

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67615 Bug ID: 67615 Summary: ICE on using arithmetic if with array instead of scalar Product: gcc Version: 5.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/59124] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong warnings "array subscript is above array bounds"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124 --- Comment #23 from baoshan --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #22) > (In reply to baoshan from comment #21) > > Don't you think the range value is strange? how it is possible the range > > value is so big according the code? >

[Bug tree-optimization/59124] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong warnings "array subscript is above array bounds"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124 --- Comment #24 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to baoshan from comment #23) > I have seen two places that would convert "A-1" to "A+(-1)", and due the > type is unsigned int, it would be converted to "A+4294967295". This looks > not right to

[Bug fortran/67615] ICE on using arithmetic if with array instead of scalar

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67615 --- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz --- With an array constructor : $ cat z6.f90 program p if ( [1] ) 1, 2, 3 if ( [1, -1] ) 1, 2, 3 if ( [real :: 1, -1] ) 1, 2, 3 1 stop 1 2 stop 2 3 stop

[Bug fortran/67614] ICE on using arithmetic if with null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67614 --- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz --- $ cat z4.f90 program p integer, pointer :: z => null() if ( z ) 1, 2, 3 1 stop 1 2 stop 2 3 stop 3 end $ gfortran -g -O0 -Wall -fcheck=all

[Bug fortran/67616] ICE on data initialization of type variable in block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67616 --- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz --- Compiles without block : program p type t end type type(t) :: x data x /t()/ end Compiles with block and intrinsic type : program p block

[Bug middle-end/64920] bootstrap-ubsan [build/gengtype -r gtype.state]: libiberty/regex.c:6970:11: runtime error: left shift of negative value -1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64920 --- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca --- I propose the following fix at line 688 of regex.c in trunk change (destination) += SIGN_EXTEND_CHAR (*((source) + 1)) << 8 ; \ into (*((source) + 1)) >= 0 ? (destination) += SIGN_EXTEND_CHAR

[Bug c++/67613] New: spell suggestions for misspelled command line options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67613 Bug ID: 67613 Summary: spell suggestions for misspelled command line options Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: enhancement

[Bug regression/67609] [5/6 Regression] Generates wrong code for SSE2 _mm_load_pd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609 Joel Yliluoma changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |regression --- Comment #6 from Joel

[Bug other/66827] [6 Regression] left shifts of negative value warnings due to C++14 switch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66827 --- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca --- (In reply to Mikhail Maltsev from comment #1) > gcc/haifa-sched.c:1164:24 > gcc/haifa-sched.c:1442:26 > gcc/sched-deps.c:112:20 > > are caused by the following macro definition in gcc/sched-int.h:243: >

[Bug c/67618] malloc+memset optimization breaks code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67618 --- Comment #4 from Daniel Gutson --- (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #3) > Trying to read the (uninitialized) contents of the allocated memory for x <= > 12 would be undefined behaviour, so calling calloc instead does not change > the

[Bug c/67618] malloc+memset optimization breaks code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67618 --- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab --- Trying to read the (uninitialized) contents of the allocated memory for x <= 12 would be undefined behaviour, so calling calloc instead does not change the defined behaviour.

[Bug c/67618] malloc+memset optimization breaks code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67618 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Component|middle-end |c --- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---

[Bug tree-optimization/59124] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong warnings "array subscript is above array bounds"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124 --- Comment #25 from baoshan --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #24) > (In reply to baoshan from comment #23) > > I have seen two places that would convert "A-1" to "A+(-1)", and due the > > type is unsigned int, it would be converted

[Bug rtl-optimization/67609] [5/6 Regression] Generates wrong code for SSE2 _mm_load_pd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |rtl-optimization --- Comment #7 from Uroš

[Bug c/67618] malloc+memset optimization breaks code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67618 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --- Why do you call it wrong? It is always legal to replace malloc with calloc, and if we do it, the memset becomes useless. It may not be optimal from a performance POV, but I don't see where it breaks anything.

[Bug sanitizer/64078] FAIL: c-c++-common/ubsan/object-size-9.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64078 --- Comment #14 from Bernd Edlinger --- Author: edlinger Date: Thu Sep 17 19:43:00 2015 New Revision: 227886 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227886=gcc=rev Log: 2015-09-17 Bernd Edlinger PR

[Bug tree-optimization/67618] malloc+memset optimization breaks code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67618 --- Comment #9 from Daniel Gutson --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #8) > (bugzilla bug that reset the component...) > > (In reply to Daniel Gutson from comment #6) > > That's why the 'if (ptr != NULL)' should not be ignored, which

[Bug tree-optimization/59124] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong warnings "array subscript is above array bounds"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124 --- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to baoshan from comment #25) > > Why wrapping is well defined for unsigned types so adding 4294967295 is the > > same as subtracting by 1. > > What is wrapping? and where it is defined? I don't

[Bug tree-optimization/57742] memset(malloc(n),0,n) -> calloc(n,1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57742 Daniel Gutson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.gutson@tallertechnol

[Bug c/67618] New: malloc+memset optimization breaks code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67618 Bug ID: 67618 Summary: malloc+memset optimization breaks code Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug rtl-optimization/50749] Auto-inc-dec does not find subsequent contiguous mem accesses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50749 --- Comment #22 from Urja Rannikko --- All of the 3 pointer regs (X,Y,Z) can do post-inc operations, but only Y and Z can do displacement (which is what gcc tries to use, even when the increment operation would be better all around since we

[Bug sanitizer/64078] FAIL: c-c++-common/ubsan/object-size-9.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64078 Bernd Edlinger changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/67618] malloc+memset optimization breaks code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67618 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |middle-end --- Comment #5 from Andrew

[Bug libstdc++/67617] New: Non-standard const requirements imposed on associate container comparison objects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67617 Bug ID: 67617 Summary: Non-standard const requirements imposed on associate container comparison objects Product: gcc Version: 4.8.4 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/67618] malloc+memset optimization breaks code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67618 --- Comment #2 from Daniel Gutson --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1) > Why do you call it wrong? It is always legal to replace malloc with calloc, Have you seen the 'if' condition? The optimization ignores it completely. > and if

[Bug middle-end/67618] malloc+memset optimization breaks code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67618 --- Comment #6 from Daniel Gutson --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > (In reply to Daniel Gutson from comment #4) > > (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #3) > > > Trying to read the (uninitialized) contents of the allocated

[Bug tree-optimization/67618] malloc+memset optimization breaks code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67618 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |tree-optimization --- Comment #8 from

[Bug c++/67364] "accessing uninitialized member" error in constexpr context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67364 --- Comment #1 from Louis Dionne --- Ping. This is one of the last bugs preventing Boost.Hana [1] to work with GCC. I would be eternally grateful if someone could fix this! [1]: https://github.com/ldionne/hana

[Bug fortran/67616] ICE on data initialization of type variable in block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67616 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/67618] malloc+memset optimization breaks code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67618 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/67618] malloc+memset optimization breaks code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67618 --- Comment #11 from Daniel Gutson --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10) > (In reply to Daniel Gutson from comment #9) > > (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #8) > > > (bugzilla bug that reset the component...) > > > > > > (In

[Bug fortran/67614] New: ICE on using arithmetic if with null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67614 Bug ID: 67614 Summary: ICE on using arithmetic if with null Product: gcc Version: 5.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug fortran/67616] New: ICE on data initialization of type variable in block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67616 Bug ID: 67616 Summary: ICE on data initialization of type variable in block Product: gcc Version: 5.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/17729] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Duplicate __attribute__((deprecated)) warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17729 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2006-02-01 04:38:45 |2015-9-18 --- Comment #36 from

[Bug libgcc/66883] config/epiphany/udivsi3-float.c:52: bad if test ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66883 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Target||epiphany CC|

[Bug target/53712] Does not combine unaligned load with _mm_cmpistri, redundant instruction at -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53712 Marco Leise changed: What|Removed |Added CC||Marco.Leise at gmx dot de --- Comment #9

[Bug target/53712] Does not combine unaligned load with _mm_cmpistri, redundant instruction at -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53712 --- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Marco Leise from comment #9) > If this was fixed three years ago, then how does the same test program > produce this assembly with gcc 5.2.0 (and earlier)? Because the test program in comment

[Bug c/45821] no warning when returning a local variable address within a statement expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45821 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/67615] ICE on using arithmetic if with array instead of scalar

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67615 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/67614] ICE on using arithmetic if with null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67614 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/24786] Missing warning on questionable use of parameter to initialize static

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24786 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2005-11-11 17:59:15 |2015-9-18 CC|

[Bug c/67580] Improve error message on missing "struct" tag

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67580 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rui.maciel at gmail dot com ---

[Bug libstdc++/67617] Non-standard const requirements imposed on associative container comparison objects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67617 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- If that code is conforming then it's a defect in the standard.

[Bug c/55613] Add suggestion of adding struct if the name exists in the struct tag

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55613 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug libstdc++/67617] Non-standard const requirements imposed on associative container comparison objects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67617 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Both Clang/libc++ and MSVC/Dinkumware reject it for the same reason.

[Bug middle-end/38358] Could not compile gcc using large include files

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38358 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

  1   2   >