[Bug inline-asm/69899] gcc ICE on invalid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in "replace_reg"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69899 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug inline-asm/69899] New: gcc ICE on invalid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in "replace_reg"

/configure --prefix=/home/absozero/trunk/root-gcc --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib Thread model: posix gcc version 6.0.0 20160221 (experimental) [trunk revision 233594] (GCC) $ gcc-trunk abc.c abc.c:2:1: warning: return type defaults to 'int' [-Wimplicit-int] fn1() { as

[Bug middle-end/69715] [4.9 regression] ICE: in store_bit_field_1, at expmed.c:839

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69715 --- Comment #15 from Kip Warner --- Thank you for your hard work, Richard. It's very appreciated. I can't imagine what it would be like to debug GCC. Which stable version of GCC should I look for that will be the newest to carry your fix? I'm

[Bug target/69810] PowerPC64: unrecognizable insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69810 --- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool --- The patch introducing the EXTQI stuff did -(define_insn "" - [(set (match_operand:CC 2 "cc_reg_operand" "=x,?y") - (compare:CC (sign_extend:HI (match_operand:QI 1 "gpc_reg_operand" "r,r") -

[Bug target/69810] PowerPC64: unrecognizable insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69810 --- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn --- The following patch fixes the ICE Index: rs6000.md === --- rs6000.md (revision 232439) +++ rs6000.md (working copy) @@ -322,7 +322,7 @@

[Bug target/69810] PowerPC64: unrecognizable insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69810 David Edelsohn changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/66337] __alignof__(s.d) incorrect for a double member with -malign-power

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66337 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||documentation --- Comment #8 from Martin

[Bug c++/69898] New: Possibility for function with cv-qualifier-seq be adjusted to function pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69898 Bug ID: 69898 Summary: Possibility for function with cv-qualifier-seq be adjusted to function pointer Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/69740] [5/6 Regression] gcc ICE at -O2 and above on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in "verify_loop_structure"

-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/home/absozero/trunk/root-gcc --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib Thread model: posix gcc version 6.0.0 20160221 (experimental) [trunk revision 233594] (GCC) $ gcc-trunk -O2 abc.c $ gcc-trunk -Os abc.c $ gcc-trunk

[Bug bootstrap/63545] ICE building GCC hash_table<cselib_hasher,xcallocator>::find_slot_with_hash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63545 --- Comment #5 from The Written Word --- 4.9.3 exhibits the same problem on 11.23/IA and 11.31/IA.

[Bug c/28901] -Wunused-variable ignores unused const initialised variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901 --- Comment #31 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #29) > > > + || filename_cmp (main_input_filename, > > > +DECL_SOURCE_FILE (decl)) == 0))) > > > > Better

[Bug c++/69892] Missing -Wuninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69892 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/43361] missing uninitialized warning without optimization (loop representation)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43361 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug bootstrap/69897] Unable to disable libbacktrace for target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69897 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug bootstrap/69897] Unable to disable libbacktrace for target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69897 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Huh? >Trying to bootstrap an environment by building just the host tools, Why don't you just do "make all-host" instead of disabling any thing.

[Bug rtl-optimization/69891] wrong code with -mstringop-strategy=libcall @ i686

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69891 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/69881] with gcc-6 of today building gcc-4.9 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69881 --- Comment #17 from Bernd Edlinger --- Created attachment 37749 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37749=edit prerequisite patch to make c_std headers compile not perfect, but probably an improvement...

[Bug bootstrap/69897] New: Unable to disable libbacktrace for target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69897 Bug ID: 69897 Summary: Unable to disable libbacktrace for target Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug libstdc++/69893] [6 Regression] Conflicting declarations in and

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69893 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/66605] -Wunused-parameter causes internal compiler error with gfortran 5.1.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66605 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #19 from

[Bug c++/69290] [6 Regression] ICE on invalid initialization of a flexible array member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69290 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/69550] Need a way to disable "flexible array member in an otherwise empty struct" error on GCC 6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69550 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/69892] Missing -Wuninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69892 --- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse --- The example in comment #3 shows a missed optimization: if (valid_3(D) != 0) could be optimized to if(true) or if(false), whichever is most convenient (__builtin_unreachable() might also be a possibility).

[Bug target/69896] New: [6 Regression] wrong code with -frename-registers @ x64_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69896 Bug ID: 69896 Summary: [6 Regression] wrong code with -frename-registers @ x64_64 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: wrong-code

[Bug fortran/63867] LEN is lost for a CHARACTER variable inside SELECT TYPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63867 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #3 from

[Bug c++/69892] Missing -Wuninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69892 --- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- Well, gcc warns without the assignment in the loop, e.g.: markus@x4 tmp % cat bool_.ii int a; int main() { bool valid; while (valid) { a++; // valid = false; } if (a != 1)

[Bug libstdc++/69881] with gcc-6 of today building gcc-4.9 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69881 --- Comment #16 from Bernd Edlinger --- > But it does not look like the c_std headers are currently working. > I've got symlinks to non-existing c_std header files: > > ccomplex > cfenv > cinttypes > cstdalign > cstdbool > cstdint >

[Bug fortran/52651] Fortran testsuite ICEs with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52651 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #2 from

[Bug lto/51765] Testsuite ICEs with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51765 --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Isn't this PR fixed?

[Bug c++/59463] Illegal Instruction: min() _GLIBCXX_USE_NOEXCEPT { return __FLT_MIN__; }

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59463 --- Comment #5 from dank at kegel dot com --- Turns out in my case it was caused by duplicate entries in LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Go figure.

[Bug c++/69892] Missing -Wuninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69892 --- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1) > On the other hand, pass_early_warn_uninitialized is before that, and should > have warned, not sure why it failed... Ah, no, it is only the late pass that looks at

[Bug fortran/63232] Deferred length character field of derived type looses its value when used in subroutine call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63232 --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > It works for me on 5-branch and trunk. Confirmed fixed :-) Do we need to add the test to the gfortran tests?

[Bug fortran/63232] Deferred length character field of derived type looses its value when used in subroutine call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63232 --- Comment #3 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com --- Hi Dominiq, It works for me on 5-branch and trunk. Confirmed fixed :-) Cheers Paul On 21 February 2016 at 17:12, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote: >

[Bug fortran/45076] [OOP] gfortran.dg/dynamic_dispatch_6.f03 ICEs with -fprofile-use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45076 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING CC|

[Bug libstdc++/69881] with gcc-6 of today building gcc-4.9 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69881 --- Comment #15 from Bernd Edlinger --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #12) > > Index: c_std/cstddef > > === > > --- c_std/cstddef (revision 233581) > > +++

[Bug c++/69892] Missing -Wuninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69892 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --- : # valid_1 = PHI if (valid_1 != 0) goto ; else goto ; : valid_3 = 0; goto ; CCP notices that valid_1 is either undefined or 0 and simplifies it to 0. There

[Bug fortran/68289] Missing diagnostic pragmas

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68289 --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Related to pr64273.

[Bug fortran/63232] Deferred length character field of derived type looses its value when used in subroutine call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63232 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING CC|

[Bug plugins/45078] config/vxworks-dummy.h not installed as a plugin header on some archs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45078 Matthias Klose changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug target/69895] New: [5/6] dependency of gcc-plugin.h not installed on m68k-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69895 Bug ID: 69895 Summary: [5/6] dependency of gcc-plugin.h not installed on m68k-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/69894] New: [6 Regression] dependency of gcc-plugin.h not installed on aarch64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69894 Bug ID: 69894 Summary: [6 Regression] dependency of gcc-plugin.h not installed on aarch64-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug target/69040] cris allmodconfig fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69040 --- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson --- (In reply to Sudip from comment #3) > A gentle ping.. > Any idea when this might get resolved. > > regards > sudip I thought I'd get to it this week, but didn't. Maybe the next week. Thanks for your

[Bug c++/69550] Need a way to disable "flexible array member in an otherwise empty struct" error on GCC 6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69550 --- Comment #19 from Milan Bouchet-Valat --- So what's your decision regarding this? Knowing it would help deciding how to handle it in Julia.

[Bug libstdc++/69893] New: [6 Regression] Conflicting declarations in and

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69893 Bug ID: 69893 Summary: [6 Regression] Conflicting declarations in and Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: rejects-valid

[Bug target/69890] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/chkp-* on x86_64-apple-darwin15

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69890 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/69368] [6 Regression] spec2006 test case 416.gamess fails with the g++ 6.0 compiler starting with r232508

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368 --- Comment #62 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Mikhail Maltsev from comment #60) > > BTW, how to fix this in SPEC? I also noticed this problem with 416.gamess See PR 53086.

[Bug c++/69892] New: Missing -Wuninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69892 Bug ID: 69892 Summary: Missing -Wuninitialized warning Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug fortran/52531] [OOP] Compilation fails with polymorphic dummy argument and OpenMP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52531 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/57365] [OOP] Sourced allocation fails with unlimited polymorphism

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57365 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/52531] [OOP] Compilation fails with polymorphic dummy argument and OpenMP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52531 --- Comment #13 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: dominiq Date: Sun Feb 21 12:48:49 2016 New Revision: 233594 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233594=gcc=rev Log: 2016-02-21 Dominique d'Humieres PR

[Bug fortran/57365] [OOP] Sourced allocation fails with unlimited polymorphism

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57365 --- Comment #6 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: dominiq Date: Sun Feb 21 12:48:49 2016 New Revision: 233594 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233594=gcc=rev Log: 2016-02-21 Dominique d'Humieres PR

[Bug testsuite/69573] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr61053.c (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69573 --- Comment #18 from Chen Gang --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #17) > Patch committed in r233564. Sorry for replying late (I am in holiday during these days, and no any x86 environments). Your patch is OK to me. But I guess,

[Bug target/69891] New: wrong code with -mstringop-strategy=libcall @ i686

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69891 Bug ID: 69891 Summary: wrong code with -mstringop-strategy=libcall @ i686 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: wrong-code Severity: normal

[Bug target/69890] New: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/chkp-* on x86_64-apple-darwin15

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69890 Bug ID: 69890 Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/chkp-* on x86_64-apple-darwin15 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/69851] [6 Regression] ICE: in assign_temp, at function.c:961

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69851 --- Comment #8 from Benjamin Bannier --- Thanks for the fast turn-around, that patch fixed the original issue like expected. I encountered another similar issue in the same code base which still causes an ICE,

[Bug c++/69889] New: [6 Regression] ICE: in assign_temp, at function.c:961

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69889 Bug ID: 69889 Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: in assign_temp, at function.c:961 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/69368] [6 Regression] spec2006 test case 416.gamess fails with the g++ 6.0 compiler starting with r232508

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69368 --- Comment #61 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Another oddity of the "optimization" introduced by r232508 is the following test (borrowed from https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01356.html) [Book15] f90/bug% cat pr69368_1_a.f90

[Bug target/69888] New: ICE: SIGSEGV in decide_alg (i386.c:26169) due to infinite (?) recursion with -minline-all-stringops -mmemset-strategy=no_stringop:-1:noalign

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69888 Bug ID: 69888 Summary: ICE: SIGSEGV in decide_alg (i386.c:26169) due to infinite (?) recursion with -minline-all-stringops -mmemset-strategy=no_stringop:-1:noalign Product:

[Bug libstdc++/69881] with gcc-6 of today building gcc-4.9 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69881 --- Comment #14 from Bernd Edlinger --- OK, I built the ecos cross compiler now. It works. But eCos headers don't work well with C99 because of duplicate symbols with inline functions, so I have to use -std=c89, but that started with gcc-5, so