[Bug rtl-optimization/78972] [5/6/7 Regression] poor x86 simd instruction scheduling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78972 Andrew M. changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |rtl-optimization --- Comment #4 from Andrew

[Bug c++/77347] [6/7 Regression] Incorrect auto deduction failure in template class member function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77347 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Note your testcase is invalid due to [dcl.spec.auto]/7: "If the init-declarator-list contains more than one init-declarator, they shall all form declarations of variables."

[Bug c++/77347] [6/7 Regression] Incorrect auto deduction failure in template class member function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77347 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/78693] [6/7 Regression] Bogus 'inconsistent deduction for ‘auto’' error when having a dependent initializer and a nondependent one in the same declaration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78693 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lhyatt at gmail dot com --- Comment #4

[Bug target/78972] [5/6/7 Regression] poor x86 simd instruction scheduling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78972 --- Comment #3 from Andrew M. --- Created attachment 40443 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40443=edit generated code for gcc-6.3 example.c -O1

[Bug target/78972] [5/6/7 Regression] poor x86 simd instruction scheduling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78972 --- Comment #2 from Andrew M. --- Created attachment 40442 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40442=edit generated code for gcc-4.9.4 example.c -O1

[Bug target/78972] [5/6/7 Regression] poor x86 simd instruction scheduling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78972 --- Comment #1 from Andrew M. --- gcc versions >= 5 started dropping all of the additions down to the bottom of the function instead of keeping a running total. Optimization appears to follow 4.x.x up to tree-reassoc1 where >= 5 uses slightly

[Bug c++/71166] [7 Regression] ICE with nested constexpr/initializer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71166 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- At this point it is getting too late to reconsider VEC_INIT_EXPR for GCC 7, so shall we apply the fix from GCC 7 to trunk too?

[Bug rtl-optimization/78972] New: [5/6/7 Regression] poor x86 simd instruction scheduling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78972 Bug ID: 78972 Summary: [5/6/7 Regression] poor x86 simd instruction scheduling Product: gcc Version: 7.0 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 Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/78965] [7 Regression] Invalid -fprintf-return-value optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78965 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/78965] [7 Regression] Invalid -fprintf-return-value optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78965 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Jan 3 07:23:11 2017 New Revision: 244014 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244014=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/78965 * gimple-ssa-sprintf.c

[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 #14 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Jan 3 07:20:04 2017 New Revision: 244013 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244013=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/78901 * gimple-ssa-sprintf.c

[Bug tree-optimization/78969] bogus snprintf truncation warning due to missing range info

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78969 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- I think there might be a dup of this bug already. basically VRP does a copy prop of where the assert was. get_range_info is not position sensitive so the range is gone after VRP.

[Bug c++/78966] Unjustified variadic template instantiation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78966 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- There is to check if there is a constructor which converts X. There might be a C++ Defect report about this case too.

[Bug other/78971] ggc-min-expand default value is probably obsolete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78971 --- Comment #2 from Aurelien Jarno --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Actually it would be better if we reduce the need to allocate as much memory. > > >In 2017 it's quite common to have a machine with 1GB of RAM. > > Actually

[Bug other/78971] ggc-min-expand default value is probably obsolete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78971 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Actually it would be better if we reduce the need to allocate as much memory. >In 2017 it's quite common to have a machine with 1GB of RAM. Actually is is quite common to have a machine with more than 32G

[Bug other/78971] New: ggc-min-expand default value is probably obsolete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78971 Bug ID: 78971 Summary: ggc-min-expand default value is probably obsolete Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/78967] inserts are not effective

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78967 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86 Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug target/78967] inserts are not effective

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78967 --- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Mon Jan 2 22:08:18 2017 New Revision: 244006 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244006=gcc=rev Log: target/78967 * config/i386/i386.md (UNSPEC_NOREX_MEM): New unspec.

[Bug tree-optimization/66826] Unused result from dlsym in constructor results in a segfault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66826 --- Comment #4 from Yuri Gribov --- As this is not a GCC bug I suggest you * close this issue (as not-a-bug?) * report to Glibc folks (perhaps they could do more checking of return address or at least document their calling convention

[Bug tree-optimization/66826] Unused result from dlsym in constructor results in a segfault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66826 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #3

[Bug fortran/71880] pointer to allocatable character

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71880 --- Comment #7 from Harald Anlauf --- (In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #6) > Additional data points: > > - The ICE in comment #4 can be reproduced with > > character(:), dimension(:), pointer :: p => NULL() > write(*,*) size(p)!

[Bug c/78970] New: GCC crashes if input file is dash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78970 Bug ID: 78970 Summary: GCC crashes if input file is dash Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug tree-optimization/69908] recognizing idioms that check for a buffer of all-zeros could make *much* better code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69908 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug fortran/71880] pointer to allocatable character

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71880 --- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf --- Additional data points: - The ICE in comment #4 can be reproduced with character(:), dimension(:), pointer :: p => NULL() write(*,*) size(p)! ICE write(*,*) len(p) ! ICE end - The bug in the

[Bug target/65649] gcc generates overlarge constants for microblaze-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65649 Rich Felker changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx --- Comment #6

[Bug middle-end/77484] [6/7 Regression] Static branch predictor causes ~6-8% regression of SPEC2000 GAP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77484 --- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka --- >run-old.resultrun-new.result > f416.gamess 6.55s6.70s ( 2.29%, -2.24% ) > i400.perlbench 7.17s

[Bug fortran/78534] Use a larger integer type for character lengths on 64-bit targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78534 --- Comment #14 from Janne Blomqvist --- Author: jb Date: Mon Jan 2 20:00:18 2017 New Revision: 244003 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244003=gcc=rev Log: PR 78534 Modify string copy to avoid -Wstringop-overflow warning When the

[Bug tree-optimization/78969] bogus snprintf truncation warning due to missing range info

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78969 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic, |

[Bug target/57583] large switches with jump tables are horribly broken on m68k

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57583 --- Comment #9 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #8) > Created attachment 40362 [details] > patch adding -mlong-jump-table-offsets option for m68k > > This is the crude patch I mentioned in an older

[Bug tree-optimization/78969] New: bogus snprintf truncation warning due to missing range info

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78969 Bug ID: 78969 Summary: bogus snprintf truncation warning due to missing range info Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/60256] No -Wuninitialized warning for strcpy copying to self

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60256 --- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor --- Thanks for the reference. The strcmp(s, s) (and likewise memcmp(p, p, n)) case in bug 65452 is different because unlike this one, strcmp doesn't change the arrays pointed to by its arguments (which are also

[Bug tree-optimization/78913] Probably misleading error reported by -Wformat-length

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78913 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor

[Bug c++/77284] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE on valid C++11 code using initializer list: in potential_constant_expression_1, at cp/constexpr.c:5480

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77284 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/71016] [6/7 Regression] Redundant sign extension with conditional __builtin_clzl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71016 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Actually, on x86_64-linux without -mbmi{,2} -mlzcnt the CLZ and CTZ is actually undefined at zero, so there is nothing to do with that I'm afraid. With those additional options foo is optimized: -

[Bug tree-optimization/71016] [6/7 Regression] Redundant sign extension with conditional __builtin_clzl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71016 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- So, trying: long int foo (long int i) { return i == 0 ? 17 : __builtin_clzl (i); } long int bar (long int i) { return i == 0 ? 17 : __builtin_popcountl (i); } long int baz (long int i) { return i ==

[Bug tree-optimization/71016] [6/7 Regression] Redundant sign extension with conditional __builtin_clzl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71016 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 40439 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40439=edit gcc7-pr71016.patch Actually, it is (sometimes) beneficial even for library calls. Untested patch.

[Bug libstdc++/78968] New: conflict gnu's __cxa_thread_atexit and LLVM's/FreeBSD's

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78968 Bug ID: 78968 Summary: conflict gnu's __cxa_thread_atexit and LLVM's/FreeBSD's Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/78967] inserts are not effective

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78967 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/78967] New: inserts are not effective

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78967 Bug ID: 78967 Summary: inserts are not effective Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug c++/78966] New: Unjustified variadic template instantiation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78966 Bug ID: 78966 Summary: Unjustified variadic template instantiation Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug middle-end/77484] [6/7 Regression] Static branch predictor causes ~6-8% regression of SPEC2000 GAP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77484 Dominik Vogt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---

[Bug tree-optimization/71016] [6/7 Regression] Redundant sign extension with conditional __builtin_clzl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71016 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug c/77767] [5 Regression] Side-effect from VLA array parameters lost

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77767 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org|jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/71361] [7 Regression] Changes in ivopts caused perf regression on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71361 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/72739] [7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-mask-store-move-1.c after r238301

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72739 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug c/60256] No -Wuninitialized warning for strcpy copying to self

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60256 --- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek --- For strcpy(s, s) see Bug 65452, which also contains a patch for -Wsame-arguments.

[Bug tree-optimization/65206] Vectorized version of loop is removed.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Adding some flag on the MASK_STORE or MASK_LOAD is not hard, it can be in another argument, or some GF_*, whatever. But I don't understand here what is the difference between originally pointer based and

[Bug c/78927] implicit-fallthrough is very picky about FALLTHROUGH comment location

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78927 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/71966] [7 Regression] ICE on invalid C++11 code (undefined constructor used in a constant expression): in cp_build_addr_expr_1, at cp/typeck.c:5671

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71966 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Apparently this is because else if (non_constant_p && TREE_CONSTANT (r)) { /* This isn't actually constant, so unset TREE_CONSTANT. */ if (EXPR_P (r)) r = copy_node (r); else

[Bug c++/71966] [7 Regression] ICE on invalid C++11 code (undefined constructor used in a constant expression): in cp_build_addr_expr_1, at cp/typeck.c:5671

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71966 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[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 Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug c++/78693] [6/7 Regression] Bogus 'inconsistent deduction for ‘auto’' error when having a dependent initializer and a nondependent one in the same declaration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78693 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug tree-optimization/78965] [7 Regression] Invalid -fprintf-return-value optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78965 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/78965] [7 Regression] Invalid -fprintf-return-value optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78965 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/78965] New: [7 Regression] Invalid -fprintf-return-value optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78965 Bug ID: 78965 Summary: [7 Regression] Invalid -fprintf-return-value optimization Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/78938] [7 Regression] ICE in expand_vec_cond_expr, at optabs.c:5636 w/ -mavx512bw -ftree-loop-vectorize -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78938 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/78890] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE on invalid reference type in union

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78890 --- Comment #7 from TC --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6) > Sure, I just wanted to understand why the r211318 change has been done and > my comment lists why I think that happened. Ah, my fault for not actually reading the patch.

[Bug c++/78890] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE on invalid reference type in union

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78890 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Sure, I just wanted to understand why the r211318 change has been done and my comment lists why I think that happened.

[Bug c++/78890] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE on invalid reference type in union

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78890 --- Comment #5 from TC --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > Apparently what changed in C++11 is that it allows static > data members in unions and those clearly can have reference type, so that is > the reason why the restriction

[Bug c++/78890] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE on invalid reference type in union

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78890 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug rtl-optimization/78883] [avr] ICE triggered by change to combine.c (r243578)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78883 --- Comment #4 from Dominik Vogt --- A discussion of the problem starts here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-12/msg01776.html (Looks like a reload problem)

[Bug tree-optimization/78913] Probably misleading error reported by -Wformat-length

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78913 --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5) > (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4) > > 1) use the %.508s directive instead of %s, or > > 2) verify the snprintf return value is less than 512. > > Whoops.