[Bug bootstrap/68873] excessive duplicate checking during build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68873 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/71151] [avr] -fmerge-constants and -fdata-sections/-ffunction-sections results in string constants in .progmem.gcc_sw section

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71151 --- Comment #23 from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj --- Tracking binutils bug https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20545

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 drepper.fsp+rhbz at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/77438] New: MMX intrinsic on x86_64 generates bloated code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77438 Bug ID: 77438 Summary: MMX intrinsic on x86_64 generates bloated code Product: gcc Version: 4.8.4 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/77437] recipe for target 'cp/cp-array-notation.o' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437 --- Comment #5 from Manish --- ../configure --enable-multilib --with-gmp=../gmp --with-mpc=../mpc --with-mpfr=../mpfr

[Bug c++/77437] recipe for target 'cp/cp-array-notation.o' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437 --- Comment #4 from Manish --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > Couple of questions: > 1) What version of gcc are you starting with? > 2) the log file does not have all of error messages (there are some more I > know of it).

[Bug c++/77437] recipe for target 'cp/cp-array-notation.o' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Also how did you configure gcc?

[Bug rtl-optimization/77416] [7 Regression] LRA rematerializing use of CA reg across function call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77416 --- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner --- Here's a creduce'd minimal version of the test case that shows the addz after the function call. Same compiler options as above. extern int fn2 (); extern void fn3 (); extern void fn4 (int); int a, c, d,

[Bug c++/77437] recipe for target 'cp/cp-array-notation.o' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/77437] recipe for target 'cp/cp-array-notation.o' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||build Component|other

[Bug other/77437] recipe for target 'cp/cp-array-notation.o' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437 Manish changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manishthatte at hotmail dot com --- Comment #1

[Bug other/77437] New: recipe for target 'cp/cp-array-notation.o' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437 Bug ID: 77437 Summary: recipe for target 'cp/cp-array-notation.o' failed Product: gcc Version: 4.9.4 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: critical Priority: P3

[Bug c++/57728] Explicit template instantiation with defaulted method causes missing symbol

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57728 --- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Thu Sep 1 01:55:47 2016 New Revision: 239913 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239913=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/57728 - adjust testcase * g++.dg/cpp0x/explicit12.C: Add

[Bug tree-optimization/69823] [6/7 Regression] internal compiler error: in create_pw_aff_from_tree, at graphite-sese-to-poly.c:445

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69823 --- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #5) > Test-case minimized from PR68279: That should have been: Test-case minimized from PR68279 comment 3

[Bug tree-optimization/69823] [6/7 Regression] internal compiler error: in create_pw_aff_from_tree, at graphite-sese-to-poly.c:445

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69823 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug c/77436] Incorrect constant result for summing loop inserted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77436 --- Comment #3 from Lucas Werkmeister --- Sorry, I wasn’t aware that wrapping is defined but overflow isn’t. The bug also happens if the summand type is changed to long (or, precisely, int64_t), where overflow shouldn’t happen (we’re adding at

[Bug middle-end/77433] warn about usage of object that outside of the scope of the object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7

[Bug c++/77434] warn about suspicious precedence of ternary operator (?:)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77434 --- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #2) > following is not suspicious and it would seem silly to warn for it: > > return (a > 0 && b <= 3 ? 1 : 2); > > (because the suggested alternative parse

[Bug c/77436] Incorrect constant result for summing loop inserted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77436 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/77436] Incorrect constant result for summing loop inserted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77436 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/77436] New: Incorrect constant result for summing loop inserted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77436 Bug ID: 77436 Summary: Incorrect constant result for summing loop inserted Product: gcc Version: 6.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/49232] Pointer assignment of stride to CONTIGUOUS pointer not diagnosed as invalid

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49232 --- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig --- Straightforward patch: Index: expr.c === --- expr.c (Revision 239218) +++ expr.c (Arbeitskopie) @@ -3764,6 +3764,45 @@ }

[Bug c++/77435] New: Dependent reference non-type template parameter not matched for partial specialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77435 Bug ID: 77435 Summary: Dependent reference non-type template parameter not matched for partial specialization Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/77434] warn about suspicious precedence of ternary operator (?:)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77434 --- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote: > > Code such as the following are suspicious: > > > > int foo(int a, int b) > > { > > return (a > 0 && a <= (b == 1) ? 1 : 2); >

[Bug c++/77434] warn about suspicious precedence of ternary operator (?:)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77434 --- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > Code such as the following are suspicious: > > int foo(int a, int b) > { > return (a > 0 && a <= (b == 1) ? 1 : 2); Actually I don't

[Bug fortran/77429] ICE in gfc_check_dependency, at fortran/dependency.c:1261

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77429 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/77432] warn about null check after pointer dereference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77432 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- This needs data flow as the front-end has no way to process *a and then a.

[Bug middle-end/77433] warn about usage of object that outside of the scope of the object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433 --- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #5) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > > This needs data flow to see if b usage cross over the clobber or not. > > I think the simpler case

[Bug middle-end/77432] warn about null check after pointer dereference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77432 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug middle-end/77433] warn about usage of object that outside of the scope of the object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433 --- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > This needs data flow to see if b usage cross over the clobber or not. I think the simpler case can be warned in the FE. I cannot imagine a correct use of

[Bug middle-end/77433] warn about usage of object that outside of the scope of the object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- This also should be detected at runtime with either -fsantizer=undefined or -fsantizer=address (if it is not, please file another bug for that).

[Bug middle-end/77433] warn about usage of object that outside of the scope of the object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/77433] warn about object that escapes its scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |middle-end --- Comment #2 from Andrew

[Bug other/77421] Bugs found in GCC with the help of PVS-Studio

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421 --- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #2) > I'd also encourage people to look at these issues for ideas for new > warnings in GCC, if they can define a warning case that's plausible to >

[Bug c++/77433] warn about object that escapes its scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Summary|warn

[Bug c++/77434] New: warn about suspicious precedence of ternary operator (?:)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77434 Bug ID: 77434 Summary: warn about suspicious precedence of ternary operator (?:) Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement

[Bug c++/77433] New: warn about pointer that escapes its scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433 Bug ID: 77433 Summary: warn about pointer that escapes its scope Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/77432] New: warn about null check after pointer dereference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77432 Bug ID: 77432 Summary: warn about null check after pointer dereference Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3

[Bug rtl-optimization/77425] Pointer test follows dereference in sched-int.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77425 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug tree-optimization/77424] Identical statements in if-else branches

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77424 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c++/77431] New: warn for having the same code in if-else branches

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77431 Bug ID: 77431 Summary: warn for having the same code in if-else branches Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug other/77421] Bugs found in GCC with the help of PVS-Studio

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421 --- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- || xloc.file == '\0' || xloc.file[0] == '\xff' || xloc.file[1] == '\xff') This missing warning is PR64767

[Bug c++/64767] Could GCC warn when a pointer is compared against '\0'?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64767 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug tree-optimization/71077] [7 Regression] gcc -lto raises ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71077 --- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka --- Author: ppalka Date: Wed Aug 31 19:06:22 2016 New Revision: 239907 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239907=gcc=rev Log: Fix folding of VECTOR_CST comparisons gcc/ChangeLog: Backport from

[Bug middle-end/68542] [6 Regression] 10% 481.wrf performance regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68542 --- Comment #11 from Patrick Palka --- Author: ppalka Date: Wed Aug 31 19:06:22 2016 New Revision: 239907 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239907=gcc=rev Log: Fix folding of VECTOR_CST comparisons gcc/ChangeLog: Backport from

[Bug other/77421] Bugs found in GCC with the help of PVS-Studio

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421 --- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5) > Remaining issues: The missing warning is tracked in PR77430.

[Bug c++/77430] New: warn about redundant assignments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77430 Bug ID: 77430 Summary: warn about redundant assignments Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug other/77421] Bugs found in GCC with the help of PVS-Studio

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug fortran/77429] ICE in gfc_check_dependency, at fortran/dependency.c:1261

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77429 --- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz --- Whereas : $ cat z3.f90 program p shape(1,2,3) = 0 end $ gfortran-7-20160828 z3.f90 z3.f90:2:3: shape(1,2,3) = 0 1 Error: Too many arguments in call

[Bug fortran/77429] New: ICE in gfc_check_dependency, at fortran/dependency.c:1261

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77429 Bug ID: 77429 Summary: ICE in gfc_check_dependency, at fortran/dependency.c:1261 Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/77352] ICE: verify_ssa failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77352 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Aug 31 18:42:55 2016 New Revision: 239904 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239904=gcc=rev Log: PR fortran/77352 * trans-openmp.c

[Bug fortran/77374] [6/7 Regression] ICE in resolve_omp_atomic, at fortran/openmp.c:3949

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77374 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Aug 31 18:42:08 2016 New Revision: 239903 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239903=gcc=rev Log: PR fortran/77374 * parse.c (parse_omp_oacc_atomic): Copy over

[Bug c/71345] Warn about redundant conditions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71345 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug middle-end/77426] Duplicate condition in expmed.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77426 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug tree-optimization/73714] [Regression 7] Incorrect unsigned long long arithmetic optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73714 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug preprocessor/42669] libcpp: five redundant tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42669 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/77427] [7 Regression] ice when canonical types differ for identical types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77427 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug objc/77428] incorrect 'set but not used' warning with @throw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77428 --- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries --- Created attachment 39528 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39528=edit tentative patch

[Bug objc/77428] New: incorrect 'set but not used' warning with @throw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77428 Bug ID: 77428 Summary: incorrect 'set but not used' warning with @throw Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/59124] [5/6/7 Regression] Wrong warnings "array subscript is above array bounds"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124 --- Comment #44 from Patrick Palka --- (In reply to Szőts Ákos from comment #43) > Yes, I can agree with this reasoning. However, when you remove either the > "while" or the "if" statements, the warning disappears. I don't think they > should

[Bug other/77417] libiberty strverscmp incompatible with glibc strverscmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77417 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug tree-optimization/73714] [Regression 7] Incorrect unsigned long long arithmetic optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73714 --- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse --- Author: glisse Date: Wed Aug 31 18:22:58 2016 New Revision: 239902 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239902=gcc=rev Log: match.pd: Revert a * (1 << b) relaxation. 2016-08-31 Marc Glisse

[Bug c++/77427] New: ice when canonical types differ for identical types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77427 Bug ID: 77427 Summary: ice when canonical types differ for identical types Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug middle-end/77422] -fdata-sections should put each constant in its own section

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77422 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- I don't really like that. The linker has all the info to remove unused mergeable constants or strings, so if it doesn't do that now, it should be changed to do that.

[Bug middle-end/77422] -fdata-sections should put each constant in its own section

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77422 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 39526 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39526=edit A patch

[Bug libfortran/77393] [7 Regression] Revision r237735 changed the behavior of F0.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77393 --- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle --- Author: jvdelisle Date: Wed Aug 31 17:54:32 2016 New Revision: 239901 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239901=gcc=rev Log: 2016-08-31 Jerry DeLisle PR

[Bug libfortran/77393] [7 Regression] Revision r237735 changed the behavior of F0.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77393 --- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle --- Author: jvdelisle Date: Wed Aug 31 17:45:26 2016 New Revision: 239900 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239900=gcc=rev Log: 2016-08-31 Jerry DeLisle PR

[Bug fortran/48298] [F03] User-Defined Derived-Type IO (DTIO)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298 --- Comment #18 from Walter Spector --- Awesome! I have noticed one bug so far. The compiler is missing a check to see if the arguments in the I/O procedures have the 'optional' attribute. It is allowing the attribute - even though it is

[Bug middle-end/77422] -fdata-sections should put each constant in its own section

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77422 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > That doesn't make sense. The mergeable sections really need to be the same, > otherwise nothing gets merged. And, unused constants/strings in those can > be removed

[Bug other/77421] Bugs found in GCC with the help of PVS-Studio

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- Oh one more I missed. alter_output_for_subst_insn in gensupport.c has: if (alt < 2 || *insn_out == '*' || *insn_out != '@') return insn_out; The second condition is redundant, since if it's == '*'

[Bug middle-end/77426] Duplicate condition in expmed.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77426 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug other/77421] Bugs found in GCC with the help of PVS-Studio

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- Remaining issues: find_structure in gengtype.c does: structures = s; s->kind = kind; s->u.s.tag = name; structures = s; The first assignment is redundant. ix86_expand_args_builtin in

[Bug other/77421] Bugs found in GCC with the help of PVS-Studio

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #4 from Jonathan

[Bug other/77421] Bugs found in GCC with the help of PVS-Studio

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- Created attachment 39525 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39525=edit Patch to fix most of the reported issues. I've created three new bugs for cases where the fix isn't clear. This

[Bug other/77421] Bugs found in GCC with the help of PVS-Studio

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421 --- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- I'd also encourage people to look at these issues for ideas for new warnings in GCC, if they can define a warning case that's plausible to check for in GCC with a low false-positive rate

[Bug middle-end/77426] New: Duplicate condition in expmed.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77426 Bug ID: 77426 Summary: Duplicate condition in expmed.c Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3 Component: middle-end

[Bug rtl-optimization/77425] New: Pointer test follows dereference in sched-int.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77425 Bug ID: 77425 Summary: Pointer test follows dereference in sched-int.h Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/77424] New: Identical statements in if-else branches

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77424 Bug ID: 77424 Summary: Identical statements in if-else branches Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug middle-end/77422] -fdata-sections should put each constant in its own section

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77422 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug c/65467] [libgomp] sorry, unimplemented: '_Atomic' with OpenMP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65467 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 39524 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39524=edit gcc7-pr65467-wip.patch Untested WIP patch. This attempts to handle _Atomic qualified vars/expressions etc. where it

[Bug c/77423] -Wlogical-not-parentheses false positive for bitwise expression with _Bool operands

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77423 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug testsuite/61513] [fortran-dev] libgomp.fortran/alloc(-comp-[23].f90|atable12.f90) fail when compiled with fortran-dev

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61513 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/77423] -Wlogical-not-parentheses false positive for bitwise expression with _Bool operands

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77423 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Severity|normal

[Bug c/77423] New: -Wlogical-not-parentheses false positive for bitwise expression with _Bool operands

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77423 Bug ID: 77423 Summary: -Wlogical-not-parentheses false positive for bitwise expression with _Bool operands Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug other/16519] -pthreads and -threads undocumented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16519 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2005-07-19 05:27:40 |2016-8-31 --- Comment #2 from

[Bug middle-end/77422] -fdata-sections should put each constant in its own section

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77422 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|-fdata-sections should put |-fdata-sections should put

[Bug libstdc++/70081] Document how to add new symbols to libstdc++ exports

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70081 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/77422] New: -fdata-sections should put each string literal in its own section

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77422 Bug ID: 77422 Summary: -fdata-sections should put each string literal in its own section Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug other/77421] Bugs found in GCC with the help of PVS-Studio

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last

[Bug other/59055] gcc.texinfo warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59055 Gerald Pfeifer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug other/77421] New: Bugs found in GCC with the help of PVS-Studio

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421 Bug ID: 77421 Summary: Bugs found in GCC with the help of PVS-Studio Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug bootstrap/77359] [7 Regression] AIX bootstrap failure due to alignment of stack pointer + STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359 --- Comment #13 from Dominik Vogt --- > What do you mean by size of a stack slot? On s390, if we have one "int" variables on the stack, this uses a "slot" 4 bytes. The stack pointer maintains an 8 byte alignmet though, i.e. SP is changec by 8.

[Bug bootstrap/77359] [7 Regression] AIX bootstrap failure due to alignment of stack pointer + STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359 David Edelsohn changed: What|Removed |Added Target|powerpc-ibm-aix*|powerpc*-*-* --- Comment #12 from

[Bug target/71151] [avr] -fmerge-constants and -fdata-sections/-ffunction-sections results in string constants in .progmem.gcc_sw section

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71151 --- Comment #22 from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj --- Confirmed that it's a linker issue related to adjusting reloc addends in the presence of align directives. Found two separate bugs, will post patches later this week.

[Bug bootstrap/77359] [7 Regression] AIX bootstrap failure due to alignment of stack pointer + STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359 --- Comment #11 from Dominik Vogt --- But does that really match the Abi? On s390 (31 bit) we have an 8 byte aligned stack pointer, but the size of a stack slot is just 4 bytes, so the offset from the stack pointer may just be a multiple of 4.

[Bug bootstrap/77359] [7 Regression] AIX bootstrap failure due to alignment of stack pointer + STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359 --- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn --- I was thinking more of #define STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET(FUNDECL) \ (RS6000_ALIGN (crtl->outgoing_args_size, \ (TARGET_ALTIVEC

[Bug fortran/77420] [5/6/7 Regression] gfortran and equivalence produces internal compiler error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77420 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug bootstrap/77359] [7 Regression] AIX bootstrap failure due to alignment of stack pointer + STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359 --- Comment #9 from Dominik Vogt --- > AIX increased the alignment when Altivec support was added. It > appears that STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET should add a test for AIX. Is the alignment of the dynamic area part of the AIX Abi?

[Bug bootstrap/77359] [7 Regression] AIX bootstrap failure due to alignment of stack pointer + STACK_DYNAMIC_OFFSET

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77359 --- Comment #8 from Dominik Vogt --- Something like this: -- snip -- diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h index 353f388..3158c24 100644 --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h @@ -1719,6

[Bug fortran/77420] New: gfortran and equivalence produces internal compiler error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77420 Bug ID: 77420 Summary: gfortran and equivalence produces internal compiler error Product: gcc Version: 5.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

  1   2   >