[Bug lto/78908] [6/7 Regression] lto1: internal compiler error: in lto_read_decls, at lto/lto.c:1814

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78908 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/78879] -fprofile-generate causes undefined reference to `____ilog2_NaN'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78879 --- Comment #11 from Yuan Pengfei --- It seems that if a variable has two or more constant values, gcc does not treat it as a constant and b_c_p returns 0. Is that correct? If so, I might have figured out where the problem is. With

[Bug bootstrap/78893] gcc-6.3.0 build fails on genattrtab on CentOS 7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78893 --- Comment #3 from William Bader --- Thanks! Increasing the allocated memory fixed the problem, and the gcc build completed. Regards, William $ /usr/bin/free -h totalusedfree shared buff/cache available

[Bug debug/78909] New: local variables unavailable in constructor under Oracle dbx

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78909 Bug ID: 78909 Summary: local variables unavailable in constructor under Oracle dbx Product: gcc Version: 6.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/58114] allow turning the warning about deleting a pointer of incomplete type into an error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58114 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Chris Wilson from comment #6) > I disagree with the assessment of this bug as a duplicate of bug 43452. That > bug was resolved by the creation of the -Wdelete-incomplete option, upon > which

[Bug libstdc++/78905] Add a macro to determine that the library is implemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78905 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/78901] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: statement marked for throw in middle of block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 40407 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40407=edit gcc7-pr78901-1.patch Untested fix. With this snprintf in -std=c++11 and above will be actually noexcept even if

[Bug middle-end/78879] -fprofile-generate causes undefined reference to `____ilog2_NaN'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78879 Yuan Pengfei changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug middle-end/73550] Another wrong -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning in switch statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73550 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug tree-optimization/78496] [7 Regression] Missed opportunities for jump threading

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78496 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug c++/58114] allow turning the warning about deleting a pointer of incomplete type into an error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58114 Chris Wilson changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug middle-end/78901] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: statement marked for throw in middle of block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug lto/78908] New: lto1: internal compiler error: in lto_read_decls, at lto/lto.c:1814

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78908 Bug ID: 78908 Summary: lto1: internal compiler error: in lto_read_decls, at lto/lto.c:1814 Product: gcc Version: 6.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/78901] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: statement marked for throw in middle of block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/78907] internal compiler error segmentation fault with recursive constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78907 --- Comment #2 from hr.jonas.hansen at gmail dot com --- This is not an issue with g++ 5.2.1, did the default stack size change? There is actually no need for using 65536 even -fconstexpr-depth=26000 will ensure the crash, on my computer. How do

[Bug middle-end/78904] zero-extracts are not effective

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78904 --- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool --- Ah, "high byte" registers are never a separate register in the i386 backend, I see. combine would need to combine four insns to arrive at your current pattern, but it doesn't try because it thinks they

[Bug c++/78907] internal compiler error segmentation fault with recursive constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78907 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/78901] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: statement marked for throw in middle of block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Actually, it seems similarly declared strlen, strchr or sprintf are all nothrow, so there might be some bug with handling C99 builtins in C++.

[Bug middle-end/78904] zero-extracts are not effective

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78904 --- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak --- A better testcase: --cut here-- struct S1 { char pad1; unsigned char val; short pad2; }; struct S1 test (struct S1 a, struct S1 b) { a.val += b.val; return a; } --cut here-- compiles with -O2 to:

[Bug c++/78907] New: internal compiler error segmentation fault with recursive constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78907 Bug ID: 78907 Summary: internal compiler error segmentation fault with recursive constexpr Product: gcc Version: 6.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/78496] [7 Regression] Missed opportunities for jump threading

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78496 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/78904] zero-extracts are not effective

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78904 --- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak --- Created attachment 40405 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40405=edit Prototype patch for addqi_ext_[1,2] patterns The prototype patch compiles the testcase to: movl%edi, %edx

[Bug tree-optimization/78856] [6/7 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu (in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78856 --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law --- So what appears to be happening is we have two loops, one natural, and an inner irreducible loop. We have a potential jump thread that starts on outside the outer loop and targets a block that is in the

[Bug middle-end/78904] zero-extracts are not effective

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78904 --- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #3) > (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2) > > No, unfortunately the above is not a valid x86 insn. x86 has two-operand > > instructions, so output has to

[Bug libfortran/51119] MATMUL slow for large matrices

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119 Bug 51119 depends on bug 66189, which changed state. Bug 66189 Summary: Block loops for inline matmul https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66189 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/66189] Block loops for inline matmul

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66189 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/37131] inline matmul for small matrix sizes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131 Bug 37131 depends on bug 66189, which changed state. Bug 66189 Summary: Block loops for inline matmul https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66189 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/78239] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE in char_len_param_value, at fortran/decl.c:926, with -fimplicit-none

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78239 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/78906] ICE with a member variable template whose type is a decltype of a member variable template of a class template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78906 --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Thu Dec 22 20:29:07 2016 New Revision: 243897 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243897=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/78906 - ICE with member variable template * pt.c

[Bug fortran/78239] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE in char_len_param_value, at fortran/decl.c:926, with -fimplicit-none

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78239 --- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Thu Dec 22 20:27:52 2016 New Revision: 243895 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243895=gcc=rev Log: 2016-12-22 Thomas Koenig Backport from trunk

[Bug middle-end/78904] zero-extracts are not effective

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78904 --- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2) > No, unfortunately the above is not a valid x86 insn. x86 has two-operand > instructions, so output has to match one of the operands. But these are pseudos.

[Bug middle-end/78904] zero-extracts are not effective

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78904 --- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #1) > === > Trying 10, 9 -> 11: > Failed to match this instruction: > (parallel [ > (set (reg:QI 88 [ _2 ]) > (plus:QI (subreg:QI

[Bug middle-end/78901] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: statement marked for throw in middle of block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 CC|

[Bug middle-end/78901] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: statement marked for throw in middle of block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 40404 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40404=edit gcc7-pr78901.patch There are multiple issues, this patch hopefully fixes just one of them - the case when the call

[Bug tree-optimization/78856] [6/7 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu (in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78856 --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law --- I can't prove it yet, but I suspect this is another case where transformations have collapsed loops and invalidated the cached iteration information.

[Bug fortran/78881] [F03] reading from string with DTIO procedure does not work properly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78881 --- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle --- (In reply to janus from comment #2) > (In reply to janus from comment #0) > > It seems like the first character is being swallowed somewhere ... > > Moreover the EOF is supposed to be an EOR? I will start

[Bug target/71216] [4.9/5/6/7 Regression] Incorrect PPC assembly due to inserted .machine pseudo-op

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71216 --- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Rin Okuyama from comment #9) > > > However, I have a question on this fix. How about the case where > > > "-Wa,-mXXX" option is given without "-mcpu=YYY" option specified? > > > > That

[Bug tree-optimization/78899] [7 Regression] Vestorized loop with optmized mask stores motion is completely deleted after r242520.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78899 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #40402|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug middle-end/78901] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: statement marked for throw in middle of block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901 --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- Here's a smaller test case: $ cat t.C && gcc -O1 -S -Wall t.C extern "C" int snprintf (char *, __SIZE_TYPE__, const char *, ...); int foo () { try { return snprintf (0, 0, ""); } catch (...) { } }

[Bug c++/78906] ICE with a member variable template whose type is a decltype of a member variable template of a class template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78906 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/78856] [6/7 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu (in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78856 --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Mostly to record my thoughts... Loop unrolling inserts a __builtin_unreachable as part of unrolling one of the loops. DOM3 looks at the first 10 or so blocks determines they all have a statically

[Bug c++/78906] ICE with a member variable template whose type is a decltype of a member variable template of a class template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78906 Ville Voutilainen changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code --- Comment #1

[Bug c++/78906] New: ICE with a member variable template whose type is a decltype of a member variable template of a class template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78906 Bug ID: 78906 Summary: ICE with a member variable template whose type is a decltype of a member variable template of a class template Product: gcc Version: 7.0

[Bug libstdc++/78905] Add a macro to determine that the library is implemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78905 --- Comment #4 from Matt Clarkson --- That's OK. I'm not particularly looking for the macro to be backported to 4.9. Just as we move forward the new macro is available. If not it's not the end of the world I can always maintain the snippet

[Bug middle-end/78901] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: statement marked for throw in middle of block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #5) > This is what creduce finally came up with: Thanks for the test case. The ICE goes away if the snprintf declaration is declared throw() or attribute

[Bug middle-end/78904] zero-extracts are not effective

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78904 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/78905] Add a macro to determine that the library is implemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78905 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/78901] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: statement marked for throw in middle of block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code --- Comment #5

[Bug libstdc++/78905] New: Add a macro to determine that the library is implemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78905 Bug ID: 78905 Summary: Add a macro to determine that the library is implemented Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/78905] Add a macro to determine that the library is implemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78905 --- Comment #2 from Matt Clarkson --- Because wehen I compile with clang against the libstdc++ the problem will still occur and __GNUC__ will not be defined. This happens on any distro where GCC is the default but ships clang as an alternative

[Bug libstdc++/78905] Add a macro to determine that the library is implemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78905 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Why don't you use: __GNUC__ >=5 || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 9) instead for checking GCC version?

[Bug tree-optimization/78902] Missed malloc optimizations: malloc w/o LHS and zero argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78902 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7) > > I also think warning on malloc(0) can be useful. GCC 7 has -Walloc-zero > > that warns on all zero-size allocations. Unfortunately, it's not in -Wall > > or

[Bug tree-optimization/78902] Missed malloc optimizations: malloc w/o LHS and zero argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78902 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On December 22, 2016 5:36:56 PM GMT+01:00, "msebor at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78902 > >Martin Sebor changed: > >

[Bug tree-optimization/78902] Missed malloc optimizations: malloc w/o LHS and zero argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78902 --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6) > Warning on malloc with an unused return value sounds like a good idea to me > (in fact, it seems that all allocation functions to be declared with >

[Bug translation/78745] Truncated messages in po file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78745 --- Comment #4 from Frederic Marchal --- More multi-line descriptions in gcc/config/i386/i386.opt at line 567, 577, 844.

[Bug middle-end/71474] PRED_LOOP_IV_COMPARE wrongly calculates number of iterations of a loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71474 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/78879] -fprofile-generate causes undefined reference to `____ilog2_NaN'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78879 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/78239] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE in char_len_param_value, at fortran/decl.c:926, with -fimplicit-none

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78239 --- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Thu Dec 22 17:05:13 2016 New Revision: 243891 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243891=gcc=rev Log: 2016-12-22 Thomas Koenig Backport from trunk

[Bug c/77754] [5/6/7 Regression] internal compiler error : tree code 'call_expr' is not supported in LTO streams

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77754 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Perhaps doing it in grokdeclarator where build_function_type is called, if initialized == false? But it is unclear to me where all the side-effects can hide. E.g. int fn3(); void fn4(int (*)[fn3 ()][fn3

[Bug tree-optimization/78902] Missed malloc optimizations: malloc w/o LHS and zero argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78902 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug c/77754] [5/6/7 Regression] internal compiler error : tree code 'call_expr' is not supported in LTO streams

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77754 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Though, it seems they can be hiding pretty much everywhere: int fn3(); void (**fn5) (int[][fn3 ()]); void fn1 () { int a[10][fn3 ()]; (**fn5) (a); } ICEs with -O2 -flto, so does: int fn3(); typedef void

[Bug tree-optimization/78899] [7 Regression] Vestorized loop with optmized mask stores motion is completely deleted after r242520.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78899 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Target Milestone|---

[Bug tree-optimization/78899] [7 Regression] Vestorized loop with optmized mask stores motion is completely deleted after r242520.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78899 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/78902] Missed malloc optimizations: malloc w/o LHS and zero argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78902 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #40399|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c/78903] __attribute__((section(".ram"))) ignored with -Os or -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78903 --- Comment #2 from chrysn at fsfe dot org --- I don't care about the function being inlined in general, I just don't want it inlined into different sections -- that's why I'd consider noinline a workaround. Anyhow, if that is the definite

[Bug fortran/66681] [Coarray] Wrong result in assigning this_image() to a complex coarray

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66681 --- Comment #9 from Damian Rouson --- I wonder if this is related to pr78892

[Bug c++/78898] [7 Regression] ICE: in get_template_base, at cp/pt.c:19665

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78898 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/42329] Deduction of template template argument via base class fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42329 --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Thu Dec 22 15:19:54 2016 New Revision: 243890 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243890=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/78898 - ICE on constructor with TTP PR c++/42329 *

[Bug c++/78898] [7 Regression] ICE: in get_template_base, at cp/pt.c:19665

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78898 --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Thu Dec 22 15:19:54 2016 New Revision: 243890 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243890=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/78898 - ICE on constructor with TTP PR c++/42329 *

[Bug middle-end/78904] New: zero-extracts are not effective

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78904 Bug ID: 78904 Summary: zero-extracts are not effective Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end

[Bug testsuite/52641] Test cases fail for 16-bit int targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52641 --- Comment #14 from Georg-Johann Lay --- Author: gjl Date: Thu Dec 22 15:02:43 2016 New Revision: 243889 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243889=gcc=rev Log: gcc/testsuite/ PR testsuite/52641 * gcc.dg/fold-and-rshift-2.c

[Bug c++/78898] [7 Regression] ICE: in get_template_base, at cp/pt.c:19665

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78898 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c/78903] __attribute__((section(".ram"))) ignored with -Os or -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78903 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug tree-optimization/78902] Missed malloc optimizations: malloc w/o LHS and zero argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78902 --- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3) > Yep, it's strange, should be p = NULL. As mentioned in MAN page: > If size is 0, then malloc() returns either NULL, or a unique pointer value > that can later be

[Bug tree-optimization/78902] Missed malloc optimizations: malloc w/o LHS and zero argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78902 --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #2) > The p=malloc(0) transformation looks strange. > (I never know if we are supposed to unlink_stmt_vdef, etc) Yep, it's strange, should be p = NULL. As mentioned in

[Bug tree-optimization/78902] Missed malloc optimizations: malloc w/o LHS and zero argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78902 --- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse --- The p=malloc(0) transformation looks strange. (I never know if we are supposed to unlink_stmt_vdef, etc)

[Bug c/78903] New: __attribute__((section(".ram"))) ignored with -Os or -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78903 Bug ID: 78903 Summary: __attribute__((section(".ram"))) ignored with -Os or -flto Product: gcc Version: 6.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/78902] Missed malloc optimizations: malloc w/o LHS and zero argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78902 --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 40399 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40399=edit Patch candidate Would be such change acceptable in GCC 7, or should be wait for GCC 8?

[Bug tree-optimization/78886] [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault malloc and volatile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78886 --- Comment #9 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #8) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > > I'd say tree-ssa-strlen.c is not the pass that should remove the malloc. > > We probably want another PR about

[Bug tree-optimization/78902] New: Missed malloc optimizations: malloc w/ LHS and zero argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78902 Bug ID: 78902 Summary: Missed malloc optimizations: malloc w/ LHS and zero argument Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug middle-end/78901] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: statement marked for throw in middle of block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug tree-optimization/78886] [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault malloc and volatile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78886 --- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > I'd say tree-ssa-strlen.c is not the pass that should remove the malloc. We probably want another PR about this, because a malloc whose return value is ignored

[Bug fortran/68887] [6/7 regression] gfortran.dg/coarray/event_[12].f90 -fcoarray=lib -O2 -lcaf_single -latomic fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68887 --- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres --- If the tests are compiled on darwin with an instrumented gfortran, execution gives ==82783==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow on address 0x60200150 at pc 0x000101b79d39 bp

[Bug tree-optimization/78886] [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault malloc and volatile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78886 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] |[5/6 Regression]

[Bug tree-optimization/78886] [5/6/7 Regression] Segmentation fault malloc and volatile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78886 --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Thu Dec 22 13:09:11 2016 New Revision: 243886 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243886=gcc=rev Log: Fix tree-optimization/78886. PR tree-optimization/78886 *

[Bug middle-end/78901] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: statement marked for throw in middle of block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/78901] internal compiler error: verify_gimple failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901 --- Comment #2 from h2+bugs at fsfe dot org --- Created attachment 40398 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40398=edit intermediate file for test_random

[Bug c++/78901] internal compiler error: verify_gimple failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901 --- Comment #1 from h2+bugs at fsfe dot org --- Created attachment 40397 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40397=edit intermediate file for test_blast

[Bug c++/78901] New: internal compiler error: verify_gimple failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78901 Bug ID: 78901 Summary: internal compiler error: verify_gimple failed Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug target/78900] New: ICE in gcc.target/powerpc/signbit-3.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78900 Bug ID: 78900 Summary: ICE in gcc.target/powerpc/signbit-3.c Product: gcc Version: 6.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug fortran/78865] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE in create_tmp_var, at gimple-expr.c:473

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78865 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.5 Summary|ICE in

[Bug testsuite/52641] Test cases fail for 16-bit int targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52641 --- Comment #13 from Georg-Johann Lay --- Author: gjl Date: Thu Dec 22 12:42:35 2016 New Revision: 243885 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243885=gcc=rev Log: gcc/testsuite/ PR testsuite/52641 * gcc.dg/pr35258.c (main) : Use

[Bug tree-optimization/78899] New: [7 Regression] Vestorized loop with optmized mask stores motion is completely deleted after r242520.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78899 Bug ID: 78899 Summary: [7 Regression] Vestorized loop with optmized mask stores motion is completely deleted after r242520. Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/78660] [7 Regression] 7.0 bootstrap fail on mips64el-unknow-linux: configure-stage2-target-libgcc' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78660 --- Comment #7 from YunQiang Su --- (In reply to YunQiang Su from comment #6) > With revert some change, with patch: > > Index: gcc-7-7-20161217/src/gcc/combine.c > === > ---

[Bug fortran/78865] ICE in create_tmp_var, at gimple-expr.c:473

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78865 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug target/78660] [7 Regression] 7.0 bootstrap fail on mips64el-unknow-linux: configure-stage2-target-libgcc' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78660 YunQiang Su changed: What|Removed |Added CC||syq at debian dot org --- Comment #6 from

[Bug sanitizer/78663] [7 Regression] Hundreds of asan failures on x86_64-apple-darwin10 at r243019

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78663 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- This probably needs to go to upstream compiler-rt first. Also, it would be cleaner not to define SI_MEMMEM to 1 on Windows and move the comment there.

[Bug bootstrap/78859] [7 Regression] profiledbootstrap failure caused by -Werror=nonnull

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78859 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/78858] [7 Regression] Bogus -Wnonnull warning involving strcmp with -fsanitize=undefined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78858 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/78858] [7 Regression] Bogus -Wnonnull warning involving strcmp with -fsanitize=undefined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78858 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Dec 22 11:48:39 2016 New Revision: 243884 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243884=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/78858 * c-c++-common/ubsan/pr78858.c: New test.

  1   2   >