[Bug c/77992] Failures to initialize padding bytes -- causing many information leaks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77992 --- Comment #9 from Kangjie Lu --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8) > A simple google search (secure memset [glibc]) finds a few things: > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1381.pdf > >

[Bug c/77992] Failures to initialize padding bytes -- causing many information leaks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77992 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- A simple google search (secure memset [glibc]) finds a few things: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1381.pdf https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-12/msg00506.html

[Bug c/77992] Failures to initialize padding bytes -- causing many information leaks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77992 --- Comment #7 from Kangjie Lu --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) > >More information can be found in our research paper: > >http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~klu38/publications/unisan-ccs16.pdf > > > You research paper is wrong and does

[Bug c/77992] Failures to initialize padding bytes -- causing many information leaks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77992 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- >More information can be found in our research paper: >http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~klu38/publications/unisan-ccs16.pdf You research paper is wrong and does not consider C is an inherently insecure language

[Bug c/77992] Failures to initialize padding bytes -- causing many information leaks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77992 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Component|driver

[Bug testsuite/77623] [7 regression] test cases gcc.target/powerpc/warn-1.c and warn-2.c fail starting with r239994

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77623 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/77989] [7 Regression] -O3 causes verify_gimple fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77989 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/77843] ICE for gcc.dg/tree-ssa/forwprop-35.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77843 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug driver/77992] Failures to initialize padding bytes -- causing many information leaks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77992 Kangjie Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug driver/77992] Failures to initialize padding bytes -- causing many information leaks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77992 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug driver/77992] Failures to initialize padding bytes -- causing many information leaks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77992 Kangjie Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug driver/77992] Failures to initialize padding bytes -- causing many information leaks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77992 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug driver/77992] New: Failures to initialize padding bytes -- causing many information leaks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77992 Bug ID: 77992 Summary: Failures to initialize padding bytes -- causing many information leaks Product: gcc Version: 5.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug libstdc++/77987] unique_ptr<T[]> reset rejects cv-compatible pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77987 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Seems simple enough to fix: @@ -608,8 +608,9 @@ > >> void - reset(_Up __p) noexcept + reset(_Up __ptr) noexcept { + pointer __p = __ptr;

[Bug middle-end/77991] New: ICE on x32 in plus_constant, at explow.c:87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77991 Bug ID: 77991 Summary: ICE on x32 in plus_constant, at explow.c:87 Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug fortran/77978] stop codes misinterpreted in both f2003 and f2008

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77978 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |kargl at gcc dot

[Bug libstdc++/77987] unique_ptr<T[]> reset rejects cv-compatible pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77987 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/77990] unique_ptr<T, D>::unique_ptr(T*) imposes CopyConstructible on the deleter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77990 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/77978] stop codes misinterpreted in both f2003 and f2008

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77978 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug middle-end/77959] ICE in ix86_decompose_address, at i386/i386.c:14954

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77959 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Oct 14 19:36:58 2016 New Revision: 241182 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241182=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/77959 * expr.c (expand_expr_real_1) : For

[Bug libstdc++/77990] New: unique_ptr<T, D>::unique_ptr(T*) imposes CopyConstructible on the deleter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77990 Bug ID: 77990 Summary: unique_ptr::unique_ptr(T*) imposes CopyConstructible on the deleter Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug sanitizer/65479] sanitizer stack trace missing frames past #0 on powerpc64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65479 Bill Seurer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||seurer at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---

[Bug c++/67182] Initialising map with disabled copy elision yields unexpected results.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67182 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug libstdc++/24693] Deque improvements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24693 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- Prototype patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2016-10/msg00017.html

[Bug libstdc++/66338] std::forward_as_tuple() issue with single argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66338 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/77989] New: -O3 causes verify_gimple fail

: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 39814 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39814=edit C source code The attached C code, when compiled by gcc trunk dated 20161014 and compiler flag -O3, d

[Bug tree-optimization/77988] New: ICE on valid code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_gimple failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77988 Bug ID: 77988 Summary: ICE on valid code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_gimple failed Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/77987] New: unique_ptr<T[]> reset rejects cv-compatible pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77987 Bug ID: 77987 Summary: unique_ptr reset rejects cv-compatible pointers Product: gcc Version: 6.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/77966] Corrupt function with -fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77966 --- Comment #6 from Josh Poimboeuf --- (In reply to Arnd Bergmann from comment #5) > I checked the test case using "-fsanitize=unreachable" and that avoids the > problem. > > Josh, should we set that whenever we enable objtool in the kernel?

[Bug rtl-optimization/68212] Loop unroller breaks basic block frequencies

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68212 --- Comment #4 from Pat Haugen --- Author: pthaugen Date: Fri Oct 14 17:10:18 2016 New Revision: 241170 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241170=gcc=rev Log: PR rtl-optimization/68212 * cfgloopmanip.c

[Bug fortran/77978] stop codes misinterpreted in both f2003 and f2008

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77978 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/77965] -Wduplicated-cond should find duplicated condition / identical expressions of form "a || a" or "a && a"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77965 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu --- Comment

[Bug c++/71912] [6 regression] flexible array in struct in union rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71912 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/69698] [meta-bug] flexible array members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69698 Bug 69698 depends on bug 71912, which changed state. Bug 71912 Summary: [6 regression] flexible array in struct in union rejected https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71912 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/71912] [6 regression] flexible array in struct in union rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71912 --- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Fri Oct 14 15:37:54 2016 New Revision: 241168 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241168=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/71912 - [6/7 regression] flexible array in struct in union rejected

[Bug middle-end/77964] [7 Regression] Linux kernel firmware loader miscompiled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://marc.info/?t=1466867

[Bug fortran/77973] [6/7 Regression] ICE in scan_omp_1_op, at omp-low.c:3841

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77973 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug target/77966] Corrupt function with -fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77966 --- Comment #5 from Arnd Bergmann --- I checked the test case using "-fsanitize=unreachable" and that avoids the problem. Josh, should we set that whenever we enable objtool in the kernel?

[Bug target/77966] Corrupt function with -fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77966 --- Comment #4 from Denis Vlasenko --- This confuses object code sanity analysis tools which check that every function ends "properly", i.e. with a return or jump (possibly padded with nops). Can gcc get an option like

[Bug debug/77985] DW_AT_comp_dir is omitted when filename is absolute and the file does not contain a specific typedef

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985 infinity0 at pwned dot gg changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #39812|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug debug/77985] DW_AT_comp_dir is omitted when filename is absolute and the file does not contain a specific typedef

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985 --- Comment #8 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6) > So I just fixed the bug here, but yes, I don't know about the design > decision. I suppose CWD was decided to be useless in case of an absolute >

[Bug debug/77985] DW_AT_comp_dir is omitted when filename is absolute and the file does not contain a specific typedef

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985 --- Comment #7 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg --- Created attachment 39812 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39812=edit Emit DW_AT_comp_dir even if filename is an absolute path Suggested patch attached, with a test case. Note

[Bug tree-optimization/77979] [7 Regression] ICE on valid code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77979 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug debug/77985] DW_AT_comp_dir is omitted when filename is absolute and the file does not contain a specific typedef

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- So I just fixed the bug here, but yes, I don't know about the design decision. I suppose CWD was decided to be useless in case of an absolute path to the file. I don't think the debug info preserves -I

[Bug tree-optimization/77979] [7 Regression] ICE on valid code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77979 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri Oct 14 12:58:18 2016 New Revision: 241162 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241162=gcc=rev Log: 2016-10-14 Richard Biener PR

[Bug tree-optimization/77983] [5/6/7 Regression] destructor call optimized out

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77983 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Use something different than memset is the other fix. There is also a thread in glibc mailing list about a secure memset

[Bug debug/77985] DW_AT_comp_dir is omitted when filename is absolute and the file does not contain a specific typedef

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985 --- Comment #5 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg --- > Piggybacking a slightly unrelated issue: [..] Upon further investigation it seems that, whilst the debug-prefix-maps do not get applied to DW_AT_name filenames in the output of -dA, it does get

[Bug fortran/77973] [6/7 Regression] ICE in scan_omp_1_op, at omp-low.c:3841

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77973 --- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor --- ...and the assert is triggered when remapping the D.3442 part in clause: map(tofrom:*x.0 [len: D.3442]) of the target statement. The variable indeed belongs to the top-level function bind, but there is an

[Bug fortran/77973] [6/7 Regression] ICE in scan_omp_1_op, at omp-low.c:3841

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77973 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/77984] Invalid warning on templated operator= with -Weffc++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77984 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- -Weffc++ is basically broken and not useful for modern C++ code.

[Bug libstdc++/65122] std::vector doesn't honor element alignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65122 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/65122] std::vector doesn't honor element alignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65122 --- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Fri Oct 14 12:03:47 2016 New Revision: 241158 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241158=gcc=rev Log: PR65122 extended alignment support in allocators PR libstdc++/65122

[Bug ada/77986] Re-building from the toplevel doesn't work when Ada changes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77986 --- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77986 > > Eric Botcazou changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug debug/77985] DW_AT_comp_dir is omitted when filename is absolute and the file does not contain a specific typedef

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985 --- Comment #4 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg --- Thanks for the quick response! What is the reason for "absolute paths are supposed to omit it"? I'm reading the DWARF spec and I can't find a mention of this anywhere. Even if DW_AT_name is

[Bug ada/77986] Re-building from the toplevel doesn't work when Ada changes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77986 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug debug/77985] DW_AT_comp_dir is omitted when filename is absolute and the file does not contain a specific typedef

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- But also: /* Add the name for the main input file now. We delayed this from dwarf2out_init to avoid complications with PCH. */ add_name_attribute (comp_unit_die (), remap_debug_filename

[Bug debug/77985] DW_AT_comp_dir is omitted when filename is absolute and the file does not contain a specific typedef

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug ada/77986] New: Re-building from the toplevel doesn't work when Ada changes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77986 Bug ID: 77986 Summary: Re-building from the toplevel doesn't work when Ada changes Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: build

[Bug ada/77968] [7 Regression] ICEs with -flto on gnat.dg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77968 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug debug/77985] DW_AT_comp_dir is omitted when filename is absolute and the file does not contain a specific typedef

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985 --- Comment #1 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg --- Created attachment 39811 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39811=edit Reproduce the bug; set CC to try it with different compilers

[Bug ada/77968] [7 Regression] ICEs with -flto on gnat.dg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77968 --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou --- Author: ebotcazou Date: Fri Oct 14 10:28:27 2016 New Revision: 241154 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241154=gcc=rev Log: PR ada/77968 * gcc-interface/utils.c (create_var_decl): Do not

[Bug debug/77985] New: DW_AT_comp_dir is omitted when filename is absolute and the file does not contain a specific typedef

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985 Bug ID: 77985 Summary: DW_AT_comp_dir is omitted when filename is absolute and the file does not contain a specific typedef Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/77984] New: Invalid warning on templated operator= with -Weffc++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77984 Bug ID: 77984 Summary: Invalid warning on templated operator= with -Weffc++ Product: gcc Version: 6.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug libstdc++/77944] FAIL: 20_util/variant/compile.cc (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77944 Tim Shen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug libstdc++/77944] FAIL: 20_util/variant/compile.cc (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77944 --- Comment #1 from Tim Shen --- Author: timshen Date: Fri Oct 14 09:58:05 2016 New Revision: 241153 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241153=gcc=rev Log: PR libstdc++/77944 * include/std/variant: include for __try and

[Bug bootstrap/77962] [7 Regression] Bootstrap failure on x86_64-linux starting with r241063

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77962 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/77980] Regression in GCC-7.0.0's optimizer.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77980 --- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse --- Note that "regression in gcc-7.0.0" would mean that gcc-6 was doing better, which is not the case.

[Bug tree-optimization/77983] [5/6/7 Regression] destructor call optimized out

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77983 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/77973] [6/7 Regression] ICE in scan_omp_1_op, at omp-low.c:3841

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77973 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.3

[Bug tree-optimization/77975] [6/7 Regression] Missed optimization for some small constants

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77975 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- > Proved that loop 1 iterates 2 times using brute force. so the question is why that doesn't work for the new form (and this is what we should fix). Because static gphi * get_base_for (struct loop *loop,

[Bug libitm/63907] libitm/config/posix/rwlock.cc doesn't compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63907 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- Created attachment 39809 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39809=edit Use default member initializers. (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > Similar problem to PR 49894 but I

[Bug tree-optimization/77983] New: [5/6/7 Regression] destructor call optimized out

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77983 Bug ID: 77983 Summary: [5/6/7 Regression] destructor call optimized out Product: gcc Version: 6.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug libitm/63907] libitm/config/posix/rwlock.cc doesn't compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63907 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/

[Bug sanitizer/77982] New: deadlock in asan thread initialization/interception.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77982 Bug ID: 77982 Summary: deadlock in asan thread initialization/interception. Product: gcc Version: 6.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/77966] Corrupt function with -fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77966 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/77979] [7 Regression] ICE on valid code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77979 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/77980] Regression in GCC-7.0.0's optimizer.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77980 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/77979] [7 Regression] ICE on valid code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77979 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Known to work|

[Bug c++/77976] `auto x = type{…}` initialization syntax rejects `explicit` user-defined conversion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77976 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/77975] [6/7 Regression] Missed optimization for some small constants

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77975 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libitm/63907] libitm/config/posix/rwlock.cc doesn't compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63907 --- Comment #5 from Klaus Rudolph --- Hi Andrew, > Andrew Pinski changed: > >What|Removed |Added > > Status|NEW

[Bug tree-optimization/77980] Regression in GCC-7.0.0's optimizer.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77980 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --- To simplify 1/n to 0, we would have to notice that n cannot be ±1 (the last bit is zero since n is 2*x2), and it cannot be 0 either in that division. That seems quite specialized, but rather easy to add to