[Bug libstdc++/70722] include_next in cmath skips user-defined wrapper

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70722 --- Comment #1 from Martin Thomson --- My ViewCVS-fu isn't that good, it took me long enough to find this: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/libstdc%2B%2B-v3/include/c_global/cmath?r1=232585=232586;

[Bug libstdc++/70722] New: include_next in cmath skips user-defined wrapper

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70722 Bug ID: 70722 Summary: include_next in cmath skips user-defined wrapper Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug middle-end/70689] [6/7 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O1 in 32-bit mode on x86_64-linux-gnu in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:3564

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70689 --- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov --- Author: vmakarov Date: Tue Apr 19 02:49:54 2016 New Revision: 235184 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235184=gcc=rev Log: 2016-04-18 Vladimir Makarov PR

[Bug target/70721] Suboptimal code generated when using _mm_min_sd

oc .LFE525: .size foo, .-foo .ident "GCC: (GNU) 7.0.0 20160418 (experimental)" .section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits [hjl@gnu-6 pr70708]$ cat /tmp/x diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c index a66cfc4..167a564 100644 --- a/gcc/config/i38

[Bug target/68211] Free __m128d subreg of double

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68211 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/70704] [6 Regression] AIX bootstrap comparison failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704 --- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn --- This is starting to look like PR60984 all over again. Testing trunk with --enable-checking=release succeeds.

[Bug target/70708] Suboptimal code generated when using _mm_set_sd (X64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70708 --- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #15) > MyMinV2 returns a double, not a __m128d. I tried to read what the ABI says > about the unused upper part of SSE registers when passing/returning a double > and

[Bug target/70721] New: Suboptimal code generated when using _mm_min_sd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70721 Bug ID: 70721 Summary: Suboptimal code generated when using _mm_min_sd Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c/29280] misleading warning for assignment used as truth construct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29280 --- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5) > It seems like it should be trivial to enhance the warning by adding a note > with the suggestion(s) mentioned in the request. Given all the cases mentioned

[Bug middle-end/70689] [6/7 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O1 in 32-bit mode on x86_64-linux-gnu in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:3564

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70689 --- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > > Vlad, could you please have a look at this? I've started work on it.

[Bug bootstrap/70704] [6 Regression] AIX bootstrap comparison failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704 --- Comment #9 from David Edelsohn --- r224187 works

[Bug target/69148] [5 Regression] ICE (floating point exception) on s390x-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69148 --- Comment #8 from Matthias Klose --- I prepared a patch for the distro builds. Any reason that this can't go to the gcc-5-branch?

[Bug c++/70667] SFINAE error disambiguating using alignas

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70667 --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor --- I'm not sure if that changes the validity of the test case (the invalid alignment on the member makes the whole class invalid) but the error is the same with A defined with the alignment specifier rather than

[Bug libgcc/70720] New: moxie-rtems stanza does not include crti/crtn extra_parts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70720 Bug ID: 70720 Summary: moxie-rtems stanza does not include crti/crtn extra_parts Product: gcc Version: 4.9.4 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug testsuite/70719] New: the libjava testsuite does not work with dejagnu 1.6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70719 Bug ID: 70719 Summary: the libjava testsuite does not work with dejagnu 1.6 Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/70667] SFINAE error disambiguating using alignas

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70667 TC changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com --- Comment #1 from TC

[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 #5 from Casey Carter --- (In reply to TC from comment #4) > > I don't think that reading makes much sense. Among member-declarations that > do not declare a member are static_assert-declarations and unnamed bit-field > declarations,

[Bug target/70718] New: multilib_defaults on nios2 refers to -EL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70718 Bug ID: 70718 Summary: multilib_defaults on nios2 refers to -EL Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug preprocessor/70707] INT_MAX used before it is defined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70707 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |preprocessor --- Comment #4 from Andrew

[Bug sanitizer/70717] -fsanitize=object-size as warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70717 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=1 or -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 handle this well: warning: call to __builtin___memcpy_chk will always overflow destination buffer

[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 TC changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com --- Comment #4 from TC

[Bug sanitizer/70717] -fsanitize=object-size as warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70717 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- You might get the warning with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=1 but I have not tried it myself.

[Bug libstdc++/70472] is_copy_constructible<vector<unique_ptr>>::value is true

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70472 TC changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com --- Comment #5 from TC

[Bug c/70707] INT_MAX used before it is defined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70707 --- Comment #3 from Alexander Kleinsorge --- Problem confirmed with: gcc (GCC) 5.3.0 Usage before definition is no header problem (as suggested by Lewis). // TestCode, no includes # define INT_MIN (-INT_MAX - 1) # define INT_MAX

[Bug c/70707] INT_MAX used before it is defined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70707 Alexander Kleinsorge changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aleks at physik dot tu-berlin.de

[Bug bootstrap/70704] [6 Regression] AIX bootstrap comparison failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704 --- Comment #8 from David Edelsohn --- Development branch prior to debug-early merge works.

[Bug target/70708] Suboptimal code generated when using _mm_set_sd (X64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70708 --- Comment #15 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13) > (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #11) > > Since for MyMinV1 we generate no move at all, then that code should also be > > valid for MyMinV2 (no issue with sNaN in

[Bug target/70708] Suboptimal code generated when using _mm_set_sd (X64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70708 --- Comment #14 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12) > (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #11) > > As I told you in the other PR, movq is *NOT* what the PRs are asking for, it > > See the subject of this PR. 1) I know

[Bug target/70708] Suboptimal code generated when using _mm_set_sd (X64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70708 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug sanitizer/70717] New: -fsanitize=object-size as warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70717 Bug ID: 70717 Summary: -fsanitize=object-size as warning Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: sanitizer

[Bug target/70708] Suboptimal code generated when using _mm_set_sd (X64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70708 --- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #11) > As I told you in the other PR, movq is *NOT* what the PRs are asking for, it See the subject of this PR.

[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 #3 from Casey Carter --- > I'm inclined to the second interpretation, which would imply the behavior > described in this bug report is what the standard intends. This is me stumbling over my words attempting to say "I think this

[Bug target/70708] Suboptimal code generated when using _mm_set_sd (X64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70708 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|NEW Resolution|FIXED

[Bug c++/70505] [4.9/5/6/7 Regression] Constexpr failure when template type specified

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70505 --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Mon Apr 18 19:43:19 2016 New Revision: 235170 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235170=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/70505 * pt.c (tsubst_baselink): Give the new

[Bug c++/70690] [6/7 Regression] r235002 miscompiles tcmalloc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70690 --- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Mon Apr 18 19:43:26 2016 New Revision: 235171 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235171=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/70690 PR c++/70528 * class.c

[Bug c++/70528] [5 Regression] bogus error: constructor required before non-static data member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70528 --- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Mon Apr 18 19:43:26 2016 New Revision: 235171 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235171=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/70690 PR c++/70528 * class.c

[Bug target/70708] Suboptimal code generated when using _mm_set_sd (X64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70708 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/70708] Suboptimal code generated when using _mm_set_sd (X64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70708 --- Comment #9 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: hjl Date: Mon Apr 18 19:40:30 2016 New Revision: 235169 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235169=gcc=rev Log: Optimize load double into xmm with zero_extend "movq" should used to load

[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 #2 from Casey Carter --- [basic.lookup.unqual]/9 says that name *lookup* inside friend functions defined inline works as it does in member functions, but that doesn’t necessarily imply that the friend function should have the same

[Bug c++/70528] [5 Regression] bogus error: constructor required before non-static data member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70528 --- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Mon Apr 18 19:00:00 2016 New Revision: 235165 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235165=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/70690 PR c++/70528 * class.c

[Bug c++/70690] [6/7 Regression] r235002 miscompiles tcmalloc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70690 --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Mon Apr 18 19:00:00 2016 New Revision: 235165 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235165=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/70690 PR c++/70528 * class.c

[Bug c++/70690] [6/7 Regression] r235002 miscompiles tcmalloc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70690 --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill --- GCC bug: we're clearing 'cache' during its dynamic initialization even though default-initialization should have no effect. struct A { A() {} }; struct APadded : public A { char pad[63]; }; int f();

[Bug libstdc++/41759] [C++0x] static_assert phrasing should be positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41759 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Mon Apr 18 18:03:50 2016 New Revision: 235160 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235160=gcc=rev Log: PR libstdc++/41759 reword static assertions in PR libstdc++/41759

[Bug libstdc++/41759] [C++0x] static_assert phrasing should be positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41759 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/70690] [6/7 Regression] r235002 miscompiles tcmalloc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70690 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/70294] operator< and operator== for std::thread::id only findable by ADL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70294 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/68211] Free __m128d subreg of double

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68211 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug c/70477] -Wtautological-compare too aggressive?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70477 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/68211] Free __m128d subreg of double

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68211 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #2) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1) > > When the patch for PR 70708, I got > > > > vmovq %xmm0, %xmm0 > > vsqrtsd {ru-sae}, %xmm0, %xmm0, %xmm0 > > ret

[Bug target/68211] Free __m128d subreg of double

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68211 --- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1) > When the patch for PR 70708, I got > > vmovq %xmm0, %xmm0 > vsqrtsd {ru-sae}, %xmm0, %xmm0, %xmm0 > ret Note that the goal of both PRs is to get

[Bug c/70477] -Wtautological-compare too aggressive?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70477 --- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2) > ...because neither LHS nor RHS have any location here. Hi Marek, does that mean you can reproduce?

[Bug c/70477] -Wtautological-compare too aggressive?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70477 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- ...because neither LHS nor RHS have any location here.

[Bug c/70371] Number added worng

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70371 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/68211] Free __m128d subreg of double

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68211 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug target/70708] Suboptimal code generated when using _mm_set_sd (X64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70708 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8 from

[Bug target/70708] Suboptimal code generated when using _mm_set_sd (X64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70708 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 38303 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38303=edit A patch for _mm_set_sd We should use "movq" instead of "movsd" for _mm_set_sd.

[Bug middle-end/70689] [6/7 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O1 in 32-bit mode on x86_64-linux-gnu in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:3564

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70689 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug c/70400] GCC compiles a return statement with an expression in a void function (illegal under C90 6.6.6.4) with -std=c90 -pedantic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70400 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c/70297] [5 Regression] GCC Segfaults when using -g3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70297 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/70297] [5 Regression] GCC Segfaults when using -g3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70297 --- Comment #16 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Mon Apr 18 15:21:52 2016 New Revision: 235150 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235150=gcc=rev Log: PR c/70297 * c-decl.c (merge_decls): Also set TYPE_ALIGN and

[Bug sanitizer/70712] False positive from AddressSanitizer with use of 'alignas'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70712 --- Comment #1 from Kostya Serebryany --- Does not happen with clang: clang++ -fsanitize=address alignas.cc -std=c++11 && ./a.out So this is gcc-specific.

[Bug tree-optimization/58483] missing optimization opportunity for const std::vector compared to std::array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58483 --- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse --- __builtin_memcpy (_30, &._82, 12); _31 = MEM[(const int &)_30]; looks like something we should be able to optimize, and there is indeed code in vn_reference_lookup_3 to that effect, but the code doesn't

[Bug c++/70690] [6/7 Regression] r235002 miscompiles tcmalloc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70690 --- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- markus@x4 Release % cat static_vars.ii class CentralFreeList { public: CentralFreeList() {} }; template class CentralFreeListPaddedTo : public CentralFreeList { private: char pad_[64 - size];

[Bug c++/70616] [4.9/5/6/7 Regression] ICE on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in build_base_path, at cp/class.c:303

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70616 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/70616] [4.9/5/6/7 Regression] ICE on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in build_base_path, at cp/class.c:303

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70616 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/70709] [4.9/5/6/7 Regression] gcc hangs on valid C++ code on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70709 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug target/70708] Suboptimal code generated when using _mm_set_sd (X64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70708 --- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Petr from comment #3) > Is there any workaround guys? > > I was looking for some built-in that would allow me just cast `double` to > `__m128d` without going through `_mm_set_sd()`, but leaving

[Bug c++/70685] [6/7 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70685 --- Comment #7 from Nathan Sidwell --- I'm such a doofus :(

[Bug target/70708] Suboptimal code generated when using _mm_set_sd (X64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70708 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- double MyMinV2(double a, double b) { double undef = undef; __m128d x; __m128d y; asm ("" : "=x" (x) : "0" (a)); asm ("" : "=x" (y) : "0" (b)); return _mm_cvtsd_f64(_mm_min_sd(x, y));

[Bug libstdc++/70472] is_copy_constructible<vector<unique_ptr>>::value is true

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70472 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- Yes, I know how to do it, that doesn't mean we can do so easily in existing types.

[Bug target/70708] Suboptimal code generated when using _mm_set_sd (X64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70708 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/70708] Suboptimal code generated when using _mm_set_sd (X64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70708 --- Comment #3 from Petr --- Is there any workaround guys? I was looking for some built-in that would allow me just cast `double` to `__m128d` without going through `_mm_set_sd()`, but leaving the high part undefined.

[Bug tree-optimization/37021] Fortran Complex reduction / multiplication not vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021 Bug 37021 depends on bug 43434, which changed state. Bug 43434 Summary: Missed vectorization: "not vectorized: data ref analysis": pointer incremented by a parameter https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43434 What|Removed

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947 Bug 53947 depends on bug 43434, which changed state. Bug 43434 Summary: Missed vectorization: "not vectorized: data ref analysis": pointer incremented by a parameter https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43434 What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/43434] Missed vectorization: "not vectorized: data ref analysis": pointer incremented by a parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43434 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/70472] is_copy_constructible<vector<unique_ptr>>::value is true

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70472 --- Comment #3 from Askar Safin --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > It's not required, and it would be impossible to require it in general. The > problem is that std::vector does have a copy constructor, so the trait value > is

[Bug tree-optimization/43434] Missed vectorization: "not vectorized: data ref analysis": pointer incremented by a parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43434 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||7.0 --- Comment #10 from Richard

[Bug tree-optimization/43434] Missed vectorization: "not vectorized: data ref analysis": pointer incremented by a parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43434 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Mon Apr 18 13:09:53 2016 New Revision: 235147 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235147=gcc=rev Log: 2016-04-18 Richard Biener PR

[Bug target/69148] [5 Regression] ICE (floating point exception) on s390x-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69148 Dominik Vogt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---

[Bug target/70711] GCC ARM big-endian ARMv8.1 code fails.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70711 mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug bootstrap/70704] [6 Regressions] AIX bootstrap comparison failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704 David Edelsohn changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn

[Bug c++/70617] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70617 --- Comment #11 from Richard Biener --- (gdb) p p $2 = (const void *) 0x1f0 is the TREE_TYPE of a CEIL_MOD_EXPR. That looks like a bogus pointer to me. That CEIL_MOD_EXPR is at 0x75bd0b48. It's first allocated as TYPE_DECL for me, then as

[Bug c/70297] [5 Regression] GCC Segfaults when using -g3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70297 --- Comment #14 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13) > r207169 that is. r230202 I mean.

[Bug c/70297] [5 Regression] GCC Segfaults when using -g3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70297 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jan.sm...@alcatel-lucent.co

[Bug c++/70617] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70617 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/70711] GCC ARM big-endian ARMv8.1 code fails.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70711 --- Comment #4 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: mwahab Date: Mon Apr 18 12:18:10 2016 New Revision: 235133 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235133=gcc=rev Log: PR target/70711 * config/arm/bpabi.h (BE8_LINK_SPEC):

[Bug c/70297] [5 Regression] GCC Segfaults when using -g3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70297 --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener --- r207169 that is.

[Bug bootstrap/70706] [7 Regression] r235082 caused bootstrap failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70706 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c/70297] [5 Regression] GCC Segfaults when using -g3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70297 --- Comment #12 from Richard Biener --- On the branch also needs 2015-11-11 Jason Merrill * decl.c (duplicate_decls): When combining typedefs, remove the new type from the variants list.

[Bug target/70711] GCC ARM big-endian ARMv8.1 code fails.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70711 --- Comment #3 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: mwahab Date: Mon Apr 18 12:11:03 2016 New Revision: 235132 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235132=gcc=rev Log: PR target/70711 * config/arm/bpabi.h (BE8_LINK_SPEC):

[Bug c/69504] XMM register variable ICE with vector extensions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69504 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek --- Better testcase: typedef int U __attribute__ ((vector_size (16))); int foo (int i) { register U u asm ("xmm0"); return u[i]; }

[Bug c++/70617] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70617 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9) > Ok, so > > page_table table = G.lookup; > uintptr_t high_bits = (uintptr_t) p & ~ (uintptr_t) 0x; > while (table->high_bits != high_bits) >

[Bug libstdc++/70716] Doxygen comments on std containers need updating for C++11 allocators

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70716 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0) > Also, assignment operators and functions often say "Old data may be lost." I > think that's a confusing way to say that old elements are replaced, do we >

[Bug libstdc++/70716] New: Doxygen comments on std containers need updating for C++11 allocators

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70716 Bug ID: 70716 Summary: Doxygen comments on std containers need updating for C++11 allocators Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug tree-optimization/70715] New: SCEV failed to prove no-overflow-ness information unsigned loop IV

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70715 Bug ID: 70715 Summary: SCEV failed to prove no-overflow-ness information unsigned loop IV Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/70701] incomplete value numbering when memcpy-ing from array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70701 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Mon Apr 18 11:39:04 2016 New Revision: 235131 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235131=gcc=rev Log: 2016-04-18 Richard Biener PR

[Bug tree-optimization/70701] incomplete value numbering when memcpy-ing from array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70701 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug c++/70714] New: ICE: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70714 Bug ID: 70714 Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault Product: gcc Version: 5.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee:

[Bug c++/70617] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70617 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --- Ok, so page_table table = G.lookup; uintptr_t high_bits = (uintptr_t) p & ~ (uintptr_t) 0x; while (table->high_bits != high_bits) table = table->next; base = >table[0]; here we assume

[Bug c++/70617] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70617 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Jan Smets from comment #7) > Should I open a different issue for that? Yes.

  1   2   >