[Bug tree-optimization/70138] [6 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70138 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- I've already spent some time on this last night. It fails even when foo is not inlined: double u[1782225]; __attribute__((noinline, noclone)) static void foo (int *x) { double c = 0.0; int a, b; for

[Bug c/70143] [6 Regression] false strict-aliasing warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70143 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/70152] [4.9/5/6 Regression] gcc ICE at -O3 and above on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in "replace_uses_by"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70152 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/64977] constexpr variable initialization by reference in lambda rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64977 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/64954] GCC incorrectly rejects constexpr variable initialization.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64954 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Known to

[Bug target/69988] libgo.so: undefined reference to `__unorddf2'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69988 --- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- I'm trying this now: --- gcc-5-5.3.1/gcc-5.3.0/libgo/configure.ac2015-09-17 14:46:06.0 +0200 +++ gcc-5-5.3.1/gcc-5.3.0/libgo/configure.ac2016-03-09 05:23:29.407181247 +0100 @@

[Bug c++/55004] [meta-bug] constexpr issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004 Bug 55004 depends on bug 62096, which changed state. Bug 62096 Summary: unexpected warning overflow in implicit constant conversion https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62096 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/62096] unexpected warning overflow in implicit constant conversion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62096 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/62096] unexpected warning overflow in implicit constant conversion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62096 --- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Wed Mar 9 04:20:07 2016 New Revision: 234075 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234075=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/62096 - unexpected warning overflow in implicit constant conversion

[Bug target/69988] libgo.so: undefined reference to `__unorddf2'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69988 --- Comment #9 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #7) > libgo.so should have been linked with -lc (probably an implicit -lc from > some spec used when linking shared libraries). Should be

[Bug c++/61105] [constexpr] accepts-invalid with new-expression in constant expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61105 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2014-09-16 00:00:00 |2016-3-8 CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/70152] New: gcc ICE at -O3 and above on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in "replace_uses_by"

/configure --prefix=/home/absozero/trunk/root-gcc --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib Thread model: posix gcc version 6.0.0 20160308 (experimental) [trunk revision 234065] (GCC) $ gcc-trunk -O3 abc.c abc.c: In function 'zfgetline.isra.0': abc.c:17:1: internal comp

[Bug c++/60760] arithmetic on null pointers should not be allowed in constant expressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60760 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2014-12-14 00:00:00 |2016-3-8 CC|

[Bug c++/57335] internal compiler error: in cxx_eval_bit_field_ref, at cp/semantics.c:6977

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57335 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Known to

[Bug c++/70151] New: forming out of bounds constexpr pointer accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70151 Bug ID: 70151 Summary: forming out of bounds constexpr pointer accepted Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug fortran/70149] Character pointer initialization causes ICE. (F2008)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70149 --- Comment #1 from Walter Spector --- Typo: 5.8.4 -> 4.8.4

[Bug c/70150] New: --enable-default-pie causes hundreds of errors in test suite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70150 Bug ID: 70150 Summary: --enable-default-pie causes hundreds of errors in test suite Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/70138] [6 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70138 Bernd Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/70149] New: Character pointer initialization causes ICE. (F2008)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70149 Bug ID: 70149 Summary: Character pointer initialization causes ICE. (F2008) Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug preprocessor/66318] Error messages contain raw file name; malicious #line directives can do bad things

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66318 --- Comment #6 from Keith Thompson --- Thanks to this: http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article=20160308204011 I've now constructed a case where compiling a malicious source file can cause xterm to freeze. The source file uses a UTF-8 character

[Bug c/70093] Instancing function with VM return type cases internal compiler error in 'assign_stack_temp_for_type'.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70093 --- Comment #12 from sasho648 at gmail dot com --- I would really love you guys if you actually could implement something like this: void fun(int a) { struct {int _[a];} fun(); } In order to allow functions returning self-managed VLAs.

[Bug tree-optimization/64058] [5/6 Regression] Performance degradation after r216304

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058 --- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law --- The underlying randomness of coalescing is inherently due to the instability of SSA_NAME_VERSION. If we make SSA_NAME_VERSION stable, then the randomness of coalescing goes away. So I essentially toss

[Bug target/70010] powerpc: -flto forgets 'no-vsx' function attributes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70010 --- Comment #5 from Cyril Bur --- Hi Martin, (After forgetting -O2 and wondering why everything changed: conclusion -O2 is important for this) I added -fno-inline (so: -O2 -Wall -Wextra -flto -fno-inline) to my cases and while optimisations

[Bug tree-optimization/70130] [6 Regression] h264ref fails with verification error starting with r231674

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70130 --- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt --- I looked at the test case under the debugger today. Both the SLP-vectorized version of the loop, and the unvectorized version, appear to work correctly. The code is straightforward and not input-dependent,

[Bug target/9552] accepts invalid code for attribute section

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9552 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug target/70148] New: Feature request: allow overriding the SSP canary location

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70148 Bug ID: 70148 Summary: Feature request: allow overriding the SSP canary location Product: gcc Version: 5.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/70010] powerpc: -flto forgets 'no-vsx' function attributes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70010 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- I think I see the problem. The no-vsx function needs to be inlined into a function that itself uses VSX, like in this test case. I don't know if this is supposed to work. I vaguely recall inlining and

[Bug sanitizer/70147] testcase from hana testsuite gets miscompiled with -fsanitize=undefined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70147 --- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- -fsanitize=vptr is enough.

[Bug sanitizer/70147] New: testcase from hana testsuite gets miscompiled with -fsanitize=undefined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70147 Bug ID: 70147 Summary: testcase from hana testsuite gets miscompiled with -fsanitize=undefined Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug sanitizer/70135] -fsanitize=undefined causes static_assert to fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/70144] [4.9/5/6 Regression] g++ ICE at -O1 and above on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in "copy_reference_ops_from_ref"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70144 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/70141] [6.0 regression] template parameter not deducible in partial specialization of template inside template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|NEW Resolution|INVALID

[Bug sanitizer/70135] -fsanitize=undefined causes static_assert to fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135 --- Comment #11 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- Thanks for the quick fix. I can now build the entire boot.hana testsuite with -fsanitize=undefined. One testcase gets miscompiled however: markus@x4 printable % g++ -g -O2 -I/var/tmp/hana/include

[Bug fortran/69520] Implement reversal of -fcheck options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69520 --- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf --- Hi Jerry, do you think my suggested patch could be applied before the 6 release? Thanks, Harald On 01/28/16 00:31, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69520

[Bug tree-optimization/70045] [6 Regression] ICE error: mismatching comparison operand types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70045 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/70146] New: missed-optimization: i386 hidden references should use PC32 relocations instead of GOTOFF

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70146 Bug ID: 70146 Summary: missed-optimization: i386 hidden references should use PC32 relocations instead of GOTOFF Product: gcc Version: 5.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/68953] [6 Regression] [graphite] Wrong code w/ -O[12] -floop-nest-optimize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68953 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/70145] New: g++-5 and g++-6: invalid code generated for -fno-elide-constructors and constexpr array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70145 Bug ID: 70145 Summary: g++-5 and g++-6: invalid code generated for -fno-elide-constructors and constexpr array Product: gcc Version: 5.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/70141] [6.0 regression] template parameter not deducible in partial specialization of template inside template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141 --- Comment #14 from Alexander Kondratskiy --- Stackoverflow question/answer: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/35875829/template-parameters-not-deducible-in-partial-specialization-in-gcc6-for-a-case

[Bug tree-optimization/70144] New: g++ ICE at -O1 and above on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in "copy_reference_ops_from_ref"

x86_64-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 20160308 (experimental) [trunk revision 234060] (GCC) $ g++-trunk abc.cc -c $ g++-trunk abc.cc -c -O1 abc.cc: I

[Bug tree-optimization/64058] [5/6 Regression] Performance degradation after r216304

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On March 8, 2016 8:39:34 PM GMT+01:00, law at redhat dot com wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058 > >--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law --- >So

[Bug c++/70141] [6.0 regression] template parameter not deducible in partial specialization of template inside template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141 Barry Revzin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com ---

[Bug c/70143] New: [6 Regression?] false strict-aliasing warning

(GCC) 6.0.0 20160308 (experimental) gcc-6.0.0-0.15.fc24 gcc-6.0.0-0.15.fc25 PASS: gcc-6.0.0-0.14.fc24 gcc-5.3.1-2.fc23.x86_64 Pedro Alves said it is a GCC Bug so I am filing it here. https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2016-03/msg00120.html

[Bug target/70098] PowerPC64: eigen hits ICE in reload

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70098 --- Comment #7 from Anton Blanchard --- Sorry, blame my limited understanding of gcc. It fails with both with and without -mlra.

[Bug sanitizer/70135] -fsanitize=undefined causes static_assert to fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Mar 8 20:05:21 2016 New Revision: 234064 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234064=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/70135 * constexpr.c (cxx_eval_loop_expr): Forget saved

[Bug c++/60799] access checking within injected friend functions does not happen in the context of the enclosing class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60799 --- Comment #1 from Casey Carter --- This bug is present in both 5.3 and 6.0; it should probably be attached to the friend meta-bug 65608 since it is a "friend" issue.

[Bug tree-optimization/64058] [5/6 Regression] Performance degradation after r216304

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64058 --- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law --- So if I take my code to renumber SSA_NAMES so they they're consistent irrespective how SSA_NAMEs were recycled and apply that on top of r216304 and r216305 the net result is I get the same code from those

[Bug c++/70141] [6.0 regression] template parameter not deducible in partial specialization of template inside template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141 --- Comment #12 from Alexander Kondratskiy --- Ok, I will ask stackoverflow. Thanks.

[Bug target/70010] powerpc: -flto forgets 'no-vsx' function attributes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70010 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug target/70098] PowerPC64: eigen hits ICE in reload

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70098 --- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt --- The title mischaracterizes the problem. There is a problem in IRA, which causes a failure to show up either in LRA or in reload.

[Bug c++/70141] [6.0 regression] template parameter not deducible in partial specialization of template inside template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141 --- Comment #11 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Alexander Kondratskiy from comment #10) > My issue is that this code was accepted since gcc 4.8 completely fine. > Unless there is a specific line in the standard that prevents this from

[Bug rtl-optimization/29854] reload_combine looses track of uses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29854 --- Comment #8 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke --- revision 149282: 2009-07-06 J"orn Rennecke Kaz Kojima PR rtl-optimization/30807 * postreload.c (reload_combine): For

[Bug c++/70141] [6.0 regression] template parameter not deducible in partial specialization of template inside template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141 --- Comment #10 from Alexander Kondratskiy --- My issue is that this code was accepted since gcc 4.8 completely fine. Unless there is a specific line in the standard that prevents this from working, I don't understand how appealing to potential

[Bug c++/70141] [6.0 regression] template parameter not deducible in partial specialization of template inside template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141 --- Comment #9 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- There is really no need to take another look. When your testcase generates a warning under clang and also gets rejected by MSVC, it is obvious that there is something wrong with it.

[Bug tree-optimization/28144] floating point constant -> byte/char/short conversion is wrong for java

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28144 Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug other/29842] [meta-bug] outstanding patches / issues from STMicroelectronics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29842 Bug 29842 depends on bug 28144, which changed state. Bug 28144 Summary: floating point constant -> byte/char/short conversion is wrong for java https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28144 What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/27394] double -> char conversion varies with optimization level

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27394 Bug 27394 depends on bug 28144, which changed state. Bug 28144 Summary: floating point constant -> byte/char/short conversion is wrong for java https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28144 What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/70130] [6 Regression] h264ref fails with verification error starting with r231674

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70130 --- Comment #2 from Pat Haugen --- The benchmark behaves the same on BE/LE, passes with -mcpu=power8, fails with -mcpu=power7.

[Bug tree-optimization/70130] [6 Regression] h264ref fails with verification error starting with r231674

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70130 --- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt --- It's not clear to me from the report whether you have run this only on big-endian systems, or whether little-endian has been tried for Power8 (with -mcpu=power8). Can you please clarify? I ask because the

[Bug c++/70141] [6.0 regression] template parameter not deducible in partial specialization of template inside template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141 --- Comment #8 from Alexander Kondratskiy --- I'm sorry Markus, but "clang issues a warning" is not a good enough reason to mark this invalid. By the same token, the warning in clang could have been introduced "because gcc issues an error". What

[Bug c/70093] Instancing function with VM return type cases internal compiler error in 'assign_stack_temp_for_type'.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70093 --- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek --- (The decl_function_context is probably redundant since I don't see how a non-nested function could return VM type.)

[Bug c++/70141] [6.0 regression] template parameter not deducible in partial specialization of template inside template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141 --- Comment #7 from Alexander Kondratskiy --- To add some color, maybe this is related to non-deduced contexts from 14.8.2.5p5 in the standard: The non-deduced contexts are: — The nested-name-specifier of a type that was specified using a

[Bug c/70093] Instancing function with VM return type cases internal compiler error in 'assign_stack_temp_for_type'.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70093 --- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek --- Well, seems like the following fixes the ICEs! I'm still not quite sure if this makes sense at all, but the C FE testsuite still passes. Needs a comment and a bunch of tests. --- a/gcc/c/c-typeck.c +++

[Bug target/70098] PowerPC64: eigen hits ICE in reload

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70098 --- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov --- (In reply to Anton Blanchard from comment #0) > I hit the following ICE when building eigen: > > # g++ -O3 -c test2.cpp > test2.cpp: In function ‘void fn3(Matrix)’: > test2.cpp:59:1: error:

[Bug c++/70141] [6.0 regression] template parameter not deducible in partial specialization of template inside template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/70141] [6.0 regression] template parameter not deducible in partial specialization of template inside template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141 --- Comment #2 from Alexander Kondratskiy --- Looking at the diffs in r229628 linked by Jakub, I find the changes to lines 8791 and 8793 in pt.c to be kinda fishy: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/gcc/cp/pt.c?r1=229628=229627=229628

[Bug c++/70141] [6.0 regression] template parameter not deducible in partial specialization of template inside template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P1 |P3 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek

[Bug c++/70141] [6.0 regression] template parameter not deducible in partial specialization of template inside template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141 --- Comment #3 from Alexander Kondratskiy --- Sorry, I take the "fishy" comment back. I'm not familiar enough with the code.

[Bug c++/70141] [6.0 regression] template parameter not deducible in partial specialization of template inside template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141 --- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- I'm not sure this is a compiler bug at all. Even clang warns: foo.ii:10:32: warning: class template partial specialization contains a template parameter that cannot be deduced; this partial

[Bug c++/70142] New: Class members not in scope in exception-specification

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70142 Bug ID: 70142 Summary: Class members not in scope in exception-specification Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c/7652] -Wswitch-break : Warn if a switch case falls through

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652 --- Comment #40 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Matthew Woehlke from comment #39) > So? People have been asking for it for at least *13+ years* (this report was > opened in August 2002). Compared to clang which has had this feature for

[Bug c++/70141] [6.0 regression] template parameter not deducible in partial specialization of template inside template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/70141] New: [6.0 regression] template parameter not deducible in partial specialization of template inside template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70141 Bug ID: 70141 Summary: [6.0 regression] template parameter not deducible in partial specialization of template inside template Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status:

[Bug testsuite/70009] test case libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/vprop.c fails starting with its introduction in r233607

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70009 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to cesar from comment #6) > Created attachment 37898 [details] > test fix > > I've tested this patch on an arm target and it passes now. All this patch > does is make the type macro signed. > >

[Bug testsuite/70009] test case libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/vprop.c fails starting with its introduction in r233607

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70009 --- Comment #6 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 37898 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37898=edit test fix I've tested this patch on an arm target and it passes now. All this patch does is make the type

[Bug sanitizer/70135] -fsanitize=undefined causes static_assert to fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug sanitizer/70135] -fsanitize=undefined causes static_assert to fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug c/7652] -Wswitch-break : Warn if a switch case falls through

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652 --- Comment #39 from Matthew Woehlke --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #38) > (In reply to Matthew Woehlke from comment #37) > > [[fallthrough]] was approved for C++17 [...] It's a shame that gcc is behind > > the curve here. > > It

[Bug sanitizer/70135] -fsanitize=undefined causes static_assert to fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- I see -fsanitize=bounds replaces bs[i++] with bs[UBSAN_BOUNDS (0B, SAVE_EXPR , 4), SAVE_EXPR ] I believe the constexpr folding is properly removing the UBSAN_BOUNDS stuff, but the problem is most

[Bug target/70123] [6 Regression] Miscompilation of cfitsio testcase on s390x-linux starting with r222144

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70123 Bernd Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug sanitizer/70135] -fsanitize=undefined causes static_assert to fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135 --- Comment #7 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- This what you get when you implement functional programming for C++ at compile time.

[Bug c++/53637] NRVO not applied where there are two different variables involved

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53637 --- Comment #8 from TC --- The standard specifies when copy elision is allowed (http://eel.is/c++draft/class.copy#31). "return param ? a : b;" is not one of them. "param ? a : b" is hardly "the name of a non-volatile automatic object..."

[Bug c/70093] Instancing function with VM return type cases internal compiler error in 'assign_stack_temp_for_type'.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70093 --- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek --- So that would mean creating a TARGET_EXPR in the C FE I suppose...

[Bug c++/53637] NRVO not applied where there are two different variables involved

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53637 --- Comment #7 from Thomas Braun --- > The three cases (L, P, R) where GCC is "better" is actually non-conforming. Could you elaborate on that? For example case L is: X nrvo_two_different_tern() { trace

[Bug c/70093] Instancing function with VM return type cases internal compiler error in 'assign_stack_temp_for_type'.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70093 --- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek --- Probably. Because this doesn't (to my surprise) ICE: void foo (int n) { struct S { int a[n]; }; struct S fn (void) { struct S s; s.a[0] = 1; return s; } struct S x; x = fn ();

[Bug c/70093] Instancing function with VM return type cases internal compiler error in 'assign_stack_temp_for_type'.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70093 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7

[Bug c/70085] False positive -Wmisleading-indentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70085 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug sanitizer/70135] -fsanitize=undefined causes static_assert to fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- So in finish_static_assert without ubsan we have: boost::detail::operators::operator==, boost::tuple >, boost::tuple,

[Bug c/70093] Instancing function with VM return type cases internal compiler error in 'assign_stack_temp_for_type'.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70093 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- Ugh, a combination of a nested function and a VLA-in-a-struct. We're trying to allocate variable-sized temporary. Guess that's a wrong thing to do, we should generate __builtin_alloca or

[Bug sanitizer/70135] -fsanitize=undefined causes static_assert to fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135 --- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- Created attachment 37896 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37896=edit somewhat reduced testcase Creduce has a hard time reducing these Boost meta libs.

[Bug middle-end/70140] New: Inefficient expansion of __builtin_mempcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140 Bug ID: 70140 Summary: Inefficient expansion of __builtin_mempcpy Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug rtl-optimization/69195] [4.9/5/6 Regression] gcc.dg/torture/pr44913.c FAILs with -O3 -fno-dce -fno-forward-propagate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69195 --- Comment #18 from Zdenek Sojka --- (In reply to Bernd Schmidt from comment #17) > Is this reproducible on trunk? What are the exact flags required to pass to > cc1? I'm not getting a difference in REG_EQUIV notes between -fdce and > -fno-dce.

[Bug tree-optimization/70138] [6 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70138 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug sanitizer/70135] -fsanitize=undefined causes static_assert to fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135 --- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3) > Would be nice to have this reduced :/. Markus, are you by any chance > reducing this one or shall I? I'm on it... Thanks.

[Bug sanitizer/70135] -fsanitize=undefined causes static_assert to fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Would be nice to have this reduced :/. Markus, are you by any chance reducing this one or shall I?

[Bug sanitizer/70135] -fsanitize=undefined causes static_assert to fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- -fsanitize=bounds is enough.

[Bug middle-end/26461] liveness of thread local references across function calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26461 --- Comment #11 from Giovanni Deretta --- In the last few years it has been clear that threads are not enough and coroutines have seen a resurgence in many languages. Go, which is directly supported by GCC, make them a first class construct;

[Bug tree-optimization/70094] Missed optimization when passing a constant struct argument by value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70094 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug sanitizer/70135] -fsanitize=undefined causes static_assert to fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70135 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/70127] [6 Regression] wrong code on x86_64-linux-gnu at -O3 in 32-bit and 64-bit modes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70127 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

  1   2   >