[Bug c++/68763] [6 Regression] ICE: in verify_unstripped_args, at cp/pt.c:1132

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68763 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|NEW Resolution|WORKSFORME

[Bug c/68908] inefficient code for _Atomic operations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68908 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > Doesn't seem to be ppc64le specific in any way, and doesn't affect just > preincrement. The inefficiency I was pointing out was the redundant syncs above the

[Bug rtl-optimization/66248] subreg truncation not hoisted from loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66248 --- Comment #6 from Jon Beniston --- -fstrict-overflow (which is the default at -O2) tells us that we can assume it will not overflow. Even if it did, on most targets it makes no difference to the result.

[Bug ipa/66616] [4.9/5/6 regression] fipa-cp-clone ignores thunk

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66616 --- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13) > > I got > > > > FAIL: g++.dg/ipa/pr66616.C -std=gnu++11 execution test > > FAIL: g++.dg/ipa/pr66616.C -std=gnu++14 execution

[Bug rtl-optimization/67736] Wrong optimization with -fexpensive-optimizations on mips64el

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67736 Steve Ellcey changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/66248] subreg truncation not hoisted from loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66248 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- Couldn't it be optimized as: short func(short *a, int y) { short ret = 0; unsigned int tmp = 0; int i; for(i = 0; i < y; i++) tmp += (unsigned int)(int)a[i]; return (short)tmp; } Such that the

[Bug libfortran/68867] numeric formatting problem in the fortran library

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867 --- Comment #13 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 06:03:55PM +, seurer at linux dot vnet.ibm.com wrote: > > FAIL: gfortran.dg/default_format_denormal_2.f90 -O0 execution test > FAIL: gfortran.dg/default_format_denormal_2.f90

[Bug c++/68763] [6 Regression] ICE: in verify_unstripped_args, at cp/pt.c:1132

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68763 David Binderman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/68906] [6 Regression] ICE at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_ssa failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68906 --- Comment #3 from Yuri Rumyantsev --- I've prepared simple fix which cures ICE. I will send it for review tomorrow. 2015-12-15 12:50 GMT+03:00 jakub at gcc dot gnu.org : >

[Bug rtl-optimization/66248] subreg truncation not hoisted from loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66248 --- Comment #4 from Jon Beniston --- Well if it is just truncating the higher bits, why can't it be done at the end of the loop? What do you think will be different if it is done at the end of the loop? Can you think of an example where the

[Bug libfortran/68867] numeric formatting problem in the fortran library

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/63628] [c++1y] cannot use decltype on captured arg-pack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63628 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #3) > The second and third variants work in mainline. Yes, they were fixed by the patch for bug 68309. We need a further fix to handle the original testcase.

[Bug libstdc++/68921] [5/6 Regression] std::future::wait() makes invalid futex calls and spins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68921 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- This fixes it: --- a/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/futex.cc +++ b/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/futex.cc @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION // we will fall back to spin-waiting. The only thing

[Bug c/68908] inefficient code for _Atomic operations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68908 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod --- (In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #4) > I think we should rather handle this in the front end than with > quite complex pattern matching. > > If we want to do any complex logic with atomics in

[Bug middle-end/56934] ICE folding a COND_EXPR involving vectors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56934 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/62069] [GCC-5] ICE: in int_cst_value, at tree.c:10625

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62069 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/66248] subreg truncation not hoisted from loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66248 --- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey --- My understanding (I don't have a C/C++ standard handy) is that the addition done by 'ret + a[i]' is done in integer mode (not as short). This results in an integer value that may be outside the range of a

[Bug rtl-optimization/66248] subreg truncation not hoisted from loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66248 --- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey --- If we did not truncate ret on each loop iteration then ret could get large enough to overflow the maximum integer value before we truncate it at the end, leading to undefined results. But if we truncate ret

[Bug target/56309] conditional moves instead of compare and branch result in almost 2x slower code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56309 --- Comment #35 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #26) > Another analysis by Jake in PR54037: Eh, PR 54073.

[Bug libstdc++/68921] New: [5/6 Regression] std::future::wait() makes invalid futex calls and spins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68921 Bug ID: 68921 Summary: [5/6 Regression] std::future::wait() makes invalid futex calls and spins Product: gcc Version: 5.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug rtl-optimization/68920] [6 Regression] Undesirable if-conversion for a rarely taken branch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68920 --- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak --- Another incarnation of PR 56309 ?

[Bug middle-end/57348] [TM] ICE for transaction expression in gimplify_expr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57348 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/66248] subreg truncation not hoisted from loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66248 Steve Ellcey changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug middle-end/63383] internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9389

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63383 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug ipa/66616] [4.9/5/6 regression] fipa-cp-clone ignores thunk

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66616 --- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13) > I got > > FAIL: g++.dg/ipa/pr66616.C -std=gnu++11 execution test > FAIL: g++.dg/ipa/pr66616.C -std=gnu++14 execution test > FAIL: g++.dg/ipa/pr66616.C -std=gnu++98

[Bug libfortran/68867] numeric formatting problem in the fortran library

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867 Bill Seurer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug libstdc++/68921] [5/6 Regression] std::future::wait() makes invalid futex calls and spins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68921 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/16107] missed optimization with some math function builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16107 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/55180] Missed optimization abs(-x) -> abs(x)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55180 Bug 55180 depends on bug 16107, which changed state. Bug 16107 Summary: missed optimization with some math function builtins https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16107 What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/57600] Turn 2 comparisons into 1 with the min

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57600 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug libstdc++/68921] [5/6 Regression] std::future::wait() makes invalid futex calls and spins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68921 Carlos O'Donell changed: What|Removed |Added CC||carlos at redhat dot com --- Comment

[Bug target/68923] New: SSE/AVX movq load (_mm_cvtsi64_si128) not being folded into pmovzx

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68923 Bug ID: 68923 Summary: SSE/AVX movq load (_mm_cvtsi64_si128) not being folded into pmovzx Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/68922] New: g++ fails to generate code for catch clause with specific optimizations enabled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68922 Bug ID: 68922 Summary: g++ fails to generate code for catch clause with specific optimizations enabled Product: gcc Version: 5.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/68921] [5/6 Regression] std::future::wait() makes invalid futex calls and spins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68921 --- Comment #3 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org --- LGTM, thanks. Would be nice to backport this.

[Bug target/68924] New: No intrinsic for x86 `MOVQ m64, %xmm` in 32bit mode.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68924 Bug ID: 68924 Summary: No intrinsic for x86 `MOVQ m64, %xmm` in 32bit mode. Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 URL: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/34279513/loading-8-

[Bug target/68923] SSE/AVX movq load (_mm_cvtsi64_si128) not being folded into pmovzx

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68923 Peter Cordes changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization, ssemmx

[Bug libstdc++/61347] std::distance(list.first(),list.end()) in O(1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61347 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947 Bug 53947 depends on bug 57600, which changed state. Bug 57600 Summary: Turn 2 comparisons into 1 with the min https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57600 What|Removed |Added

[Bug debug/68909] [6 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2297

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68909 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |debug Target Milestone|---

[Bug tree-optimization/68906] [6 Regression] ICE at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_ssa failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68906 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug c++/53223] [c++0x] auto&& and operator* don't mix inside templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53223 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/68910] New: SPARC/cypress: Poor code generation, huge stack frame

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68910 Bug ID: 68910 Summary: SPARC/cypress: Poor code generation, huge stack frame Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug rtl-optimization/66248] subreg truncation not hoisted from loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66248 --- Comment #2 from Jon Beniston --- Hi Steve. I'm not sure I'm follow your explanation. As I understand it, signed overflow is undefined behaviour (http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/120), so I'm not sure why we need to worry about changing

[Bug debug/58315] [4.9/5 Regression] Excessive memory use with -g

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315 Bug 58315 depends on bug 66688, which changed state. Bug 66688 Summary: [6 Regression] compare debug failure building Linux kernel on ppc64le https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66688 What|Removed

[Bug debug/66688] [6 Regression] compare debug failure building Linux kernel on ppc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66688 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug testsuite/68629] FAIL: c-c++-common/attr-simd-3.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68629 --- Comment #4 from Christophe Lyon --- (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #3) > Hi Christophe, > > Could you paste the output of arm linux when compiling the testcase in > cilkplus effective target with -fcilkplus? The output is

[Bug c++/68782] [6 regression] bad reference member formed with constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68782 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #3) > Hmm, any element without TREE_CONSTANT should have caused us to return > the original CONSTRUCTOR. Perhaps the TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS stuff is not needed, but for

[Bug debug/68909] [6 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2297

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68909 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- (In reply to Chengnian Sun from comment #2) > Is it related to this recently fixed bug? > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67778 Doesn't look like it, this one has been caused by: commit

[Bug c/68845] -Werror=array-bounds=[12] doesn't turn warning into error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68845 --- Comment #3 from Franz Sirl --- Created attachment 37035 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37035=edit Alias -Warray-bounds to Warray-bounds= Tentative patch, no regressions. Please commit if OK, I don't have valid

[Bug debug/68909] [6 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2297

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68909 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- This started with r229911, but it must be some RTL optimization bug instead.

[Bug target/68910] SPARC/cypress: Poor code generation, huge stack frame

o fail||6.0 --- Comment #2 from Sebastian Huber <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> --- sparc-rtems4.12-gcc (GCC) 6.0.0 20151215 (experimental)

[Bug c++/63506] GCC deduces wrong return type of operator*() inside template functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63506 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---

[Bug c/68909] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2297

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68909 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/68906] [6 Regression] ICE at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_ssa failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68906 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug debug/68909] [6 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2297

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68909 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- Thus, not a dup of PR65496.

[Bug debug/68909] [6 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2297

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68909 Chengnian Sun changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chengniansun at gmail dot com ---

[Bug target/68908] inefficient code for _Atomic operations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68908 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target|powerpc64 | Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/21802] Two-stage name lookup fails for operators

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21802 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug testsuite/68629] FAIL: c-c++-common/attr-simd-3.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68629 --- Comment #5 from Christophe Lyon --- After discussion on IRC, it seems better to keep your patch as-is, since cilk-plus is not supported on arm anyway.

[Bug target/68910] SPARC/cypress: Poor code generation, huge stack frame

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68910 --- Comment #1 from Sebastian Huber --- Code generation for leon3 is also quite bad.

[Bug c++/63506] GCC deduces wrong return type of operator*() inside template functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63506 --- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Tue Dec 15 10:18:13 2015 New Revision: 231646 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231646=gcc=rev Log: 2015-12-15 Paolo Carlini PR

[Bug c++/63506] GCC deduces wrong return type of operator*() inside template functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63506 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug debug/68909] [6 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2297

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68909 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug rtl-optimization/67715] [6 Regression][ARM] ICE in cselib.c during reload_cse_regs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67715 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/67477] [6 Regression] ICE in cselib_record_set, at cselib.c:2388

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67477 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/67477] [6 Regression] ICE in cselib_record_set, at cselib.c:2388

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67477 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||renlin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug libstdc++/68863] Regular expressions: Backreferences don't work in negative lookahead

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68863 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4 Known to fail|

[Bug c/68911] [6 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86-64-linux-gnu (in 32- and 64-bit modes)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68911 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- This goes wrong during vrp1. Analyzing # of iterations of loop 2 exit condition [e_6, + , 1] <= 93 bounds on difference of bases: -4294967202 ... 93 result: zero if e_6 > 94 # of iterations 94

[Bug c/68911] New: wrong code at -Os and above on x86-64-linux-gnu (in 32- and 64-bit modes)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68911 Bug ID: 68911 Summary: wrong code at -Os and above on x86-64-linux-gnu (in 32- and 64-bit modes) Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/68912] New: Wrong value category used in _Bind functor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68912 Bug ID: 68912 Summary: Wrong value category used in _Bind functor Product: gcc Version: 4.9.4 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: rejects-valid Severity: normal

[Bug c++/63628] [c++1y] cannot use decltype on captured arg-pack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63628 --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini --- The second and third variants work in mainline.

[Bug c++/68071] Generic lambda variadic argument pack cannot be empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68071 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/68862] [6 Regression] g++.dg/torture/pr59163.C FAILs with -flive-range-shrinkage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68862 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/24012] [4.9/5/6 regression] #define _POSIX_C_SOURCE breaks #include

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24012 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|5.4 |7.0 --- Comment #18 from Jonathan

[Bug tree-optimization/68862] [6 Regression] g++.dg/torture/pr59163.C FAILs with -flive-range-shrinkage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68862 --- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > Started with r229086. > That said, I think it looks like an i386 backend problem. True, I have 7 FAILs of pr59163.C on x86 (x86_64 and *x32), but none on other

[Bug middle-end/68870] [6 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O1, -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68870 --- Comment #8 from Arseny Solokha --- I believe the following reproducer is for the issue reported here. Its further minimization yields backtrace listed in #c0. The only difference is that w/ the following not minimized snippet gcc ICEs in

[Bug target/66171] [6 Regression]: gcc.target/cris/biap.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66171 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 CC|

[Bug c++/68903] missing default initialization of member when combined with virtual inheritance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68903 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug target/68896] [ARM] target attribute ignored

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68896 --- Comment #2 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org --- Currently not a bug, or rather implementation specified. According to the documentation 6.61.15 Function Specific Option Pragmas #pragma GCC target ("string"...) ... Each function that is

[Bug ipa/66616] [4.9/5/6 regression] fipa-cp-clone ignores thunk

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66616 --- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor --- No, I'm still in the process of testing a slightly modified patch for 4.9.

[Bug c++/68903] missing default initialization of member when combined with virtual imheritance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68903 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|blocker |normal

[Bug c/68911] [6 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86-64-linux-gnu (in 32- and 64-bit modes)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68911 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/67477] [6 Regression] ICE in cselib_record_set, at cselib.c:2388

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67477 --- Comment #7 from Renlin Li --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > The ICE has been on > (insn 105 746 971 5 (parallel [ > (set (reg:V16QI 60 d22 [720]) > (unspec:V16QI [ >

[Bug c++/68905] [DR496] __is_trivially_copyable returns True for volatile class types.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68905 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/68819] Invalid "-Wmisleading-indentation" warning if location_t >=LINE_MAP_MAX_LOCATION_WITH_COLS

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68819 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c/68845] -Werror=array-bounds=[12] doesn't turn warning into error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68845 --- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Franz Sirl from comment #3) > Created attachment 37035 [details] > Alias -Warray-bounds to Warray-bounds= > > Tentative patch, no regressions. Please commit if OK, I don't have valid >

[Bug c++/58796] throw nullptr not caught by catch(type*)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58796 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- Yes, it's on my list. That's why I changed the target milestone to 6.0 a week ago.

[Bug libstdc++/68912] Wrong value category used in _Bind functor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68912 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/68908] inefficient code for _Atomic operations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68908 --- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- I'm fine with making the front end smarter. Note that if either side of the assignment is of floating-point type, you need to keep the existing logic; if you're adding to / subtracting

[Bug tree-optimization/63185] Improve DSE with branches

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63185 --- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse --- In addition to the issues already described, it seems that we generate better code if I replace the VLAs with calls to alloca. Indeed, we assume that alloca returns 16-aligned memory, while with

[Bug libstdc++/68925] New: uniform_int_distribution needs not to be thread_local in std::experimental::randint

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68925 Bug ID: 68925 Summary: uniform_int_distribution needs not to be thread_local in std::experimental::randint Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug inline-asm/10396] Constraint alternatives cause error " `asm' operand requires impossible reload"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10396 Bernd Edlinger changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---

[Bug lto/68799] lto ICE on powerpc64le-linux-gnu builing python 2.7.x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68799 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/61298] redundant compare instructions for powerpc64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61298 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/68929] New: GCC hangs in nested template instantiations even after static_assert fails.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68929 Bug ID: 68929 Summary: GCC hangs in nested template instantiations even after static_assert fails. Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug other/66250] Can't adjust complex nor decimal floating point modes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66250 Bernd Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/68256] [6 regression] switching constant pools to rodata sections causes go bootstrap failure.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68256 Bernd Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/63491] Ice in LRA with simple vector test case on power

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63491 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/68928] New: AVX loops on unaligned arrays could generate more efficient startup/cleanup code when peeling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68928 Bug ID: 68928 Summary: AVX loops on unaligned arrays could generate more efficient startup/cleanup code when peeling Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug debug/68904] DWARF for class ios_base says it's a declaration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68904 ivan.soleimanipour at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ivan.soleimanipour

  1   2   >