[Bug target/81357] New: Extra mov for zero extend of add

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357 Bug ID: 81357 Summary: Extra mov for zero extend of add Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal Priority:

[Bug target/81356] New: __builtin_strcpy is not good for copying an empty string on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81356 Bug ID: 81356 Summary: __builtin_strcpy is not good for copying an empty string on aarch64 Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug c++/81355] New: SegFault when using attribute target dispatch with empty parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81355 Bug ID: 81355 Summary: SegFault when using attribute target dispatch with empty parameter Product: gcc Version: 7.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug sanitizer/80027] ASAN breaks DT_RPATH $ORIGIN in dlopen()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80027 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug target/81348] PowerPC64: Code built with -mcpu=power9 hits SEGV in RTL split2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81348 --- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner --- Author: meissner Date: Fri Jul 7 20:47:15 2017 New Revision: 250060 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250060=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-07-07 Michael Meissner

[Bug c++/81349] Classes with deleted constructor templates incorrectly labeled as non-aggregates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81349 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/79300] Wrong diagnostics position

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79300 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/79300] Wrong diagnostics position

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79300 --- Comment #8 from David Malcolm --- Author: dmalcolm Date: Fri Jul 7 18:49:09 2017 New Revision: 250058 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250058=gcc=rev Log: libcpp: preserve ranges within macro expansions (PR c++/79300)

[Bug c++/81354] New: Segmentation fault in SSA Strength Reduction using -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354 Bug ID: 81354 Summary: Segmentation fault in SSA Strength Reduction using -O3 Product: gcc Version: 5.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/81317] builtin_vec_ld fails for powerpc with altivec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317 --- Comment #7 from Randy MacLeod --- Is anyone working on this bug? I'm not pushing, but rather trying to understand what to expect.

[Bug target/81348] PowerPC64: Code built with -mcpu=power9 hits SEGV in RTL split2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81348 --- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner --- Author: meissner Date: Fri Jul 7 17:02:58 2017 New Revision: 250054 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250054=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-07-07 Michael Meissner PR

[Bug target/81069] nvptx offloading: "-O1" execution test of "libgomp.oacc-fortran/nested-function-1.f90" timeout/FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81069 --- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries --- > The immediate reason for the failure is a bug in the ptx JIT compiler. The minimal openacc program triggering this is: ... program foo integer :: a(2,2,4), k, kk, kkk a = 2 !$acc parallel

[Bug sanitizer/78028] ASAN doesn't find memory leak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78028 David Barto changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/70119] AArch64 should take advantage of implicit truncation of variable shift amount without defining SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70119 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.0

[Bug target/70119] AArch64 should take advantage of implicit truncation of variable shift amount without defining SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70119 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug target/81069] nvptx offloading: "-O1" execution test of "libgomp.oacc-fortran/nested-function-1.f90" timeout/FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81069 --- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries --- The immediate reason for the failure is a bug in the ptx JIT compiler. This piece of ptx code (containing two functionally equivalent but differently layed out variants, DETOUR=0 and DETOUR=1) is a minimal

[Bug fortran/81350] gfortran OpenMP taskloop segfaults or incorrect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81350 Jeff Hammond changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |INVALID

[Bug fortran/81350] gfortran OpenMP taskloop segfaults or incorrect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81350 Jeff Hammond changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[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 CC||coypu at sdf dot org --- Comment #11

[Bug libstdc++/81353] Please provide a libstdc++ version macro

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81353 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/81353] New: Please provide a libstdc++ version macro

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81353 Bug ID: 81353 Summary: Please provide a libstdc++ version macro Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug regression/81331] [8 Regression] FAIL: 21_strings/basic_string/modifiers/insert/char/1.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81331 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu |x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, |

[Bug middle-end/70801] IRA caller-saves does not support rematerialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70801 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/81350] gfortran OpenMP taskloop segfaults or incorrect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81350 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Note if I add shared(W,A,B) clause to the 4 taskloop directives in apply_stencil, no errors are reported.

[Bug fortran/81350] gfortran OpenMP taskloop segfaults or incorrect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81350 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- That said, I believe it is just a buggy testcase. In the 4 taskloop directives in apply_stencil I believe the rule for implicit data-sharing of W, A and B variables is: "In an orphaned task generating

[Bug fortran/81344] Can't disable -ffpe-trap (or not documented)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81344 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/81350] gfortran OpenMP taskloop segfaults or incorrect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81350 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug rtl-optimization/80818] LRA clobbers live hard reg clobbered during rematerialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80818 --- Comment #7 from Andreas Krebbel --- Created attachment 41699 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41699=edit Additional changes required ontop of the proposed patch Changes which might be required on-top of your patch. Your

[Bug target/81352] New: [nvptx] trap placement for non-returning function call in vector-single mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81352 Bug ID: 81352 Summary: [nvptx] trap placement for non-returning function call in vector-single mode Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug sanitizer/78028] ASAN doesn't find memory leak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78028 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug sanitizer/61771] Test failures in ASan testsuite on ARM Linux due to FP format mismatch between libasan and GCC.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61771 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0 --- Comment #12 from Ramana

[Bug sanitizer/61771] Test failures in ASan testsuite on ARM Linux due to FP format mismatch between libasan and GCC.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61771 Maxim Ostapenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/81346] Missed constant propagation into comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81346 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug sanitizer/61995] gcc 4.9.1 fails to compile with error in libsanitizer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61995 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug sanitizer/60892] GCC (libsanitizer) fails to build with Linux 2.6.21 headers.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60892 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug lto/81351] [8 regression] Many LTO testcases FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81351 --- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > Got it: just reverting svn r250035 was enough to make one of the > testcases PASS again. comparing pr49115.exe.ltrans0.s without and with the patch shows what's wrong: the broken

[Bug sanitizer/61771] Test failures in ASan testsuite on ARM Linux due to FP format mismatch between libasan and GCC.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61771 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug sanitizer/63245] renderMemorySnippet shouldn't show more bytes than the underlying type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63245 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #3

[Bug fortran/81350] gfortran OpenMP taskloop segfaults or incorrect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81350 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug sanitizer/61693] [asan] is not intercepting aligned_alloc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61693 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug sanitizer/78654] ubsan can lead to excessive stack usage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78654 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Not intentional, but unavoidable I think.

[Bug lto/81351] [8 regression] Many LTO testcases FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81351 --- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > I'll start a reghunt to identify the culprit, but the most likely candidates > are [...] > changeset: 39311:a2df04e7a94b > user:hubicka@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4 >

[Bug sanitizer/78654] ubsan can lead to excessive stack usage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78654 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #4

[Bug sanitizer/58841] std::bad_alloc not thrown with -fsanitize=address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58841 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED URL|

[Bug lto/81351] New: [8 regression] Many LTO testcases FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81351 Bug ID: 81351 Summary: [8 regression] Many LTO testcases FAIL Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: lto

[Bug sanitizer/62307] -fsanitize=undefined doesn't pay attention to __attribute__((returns_nonnull))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62307 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug sanitizer/55316] gcc/libsanitizer/asan/asan_linux.cc:70:3: error: #error "Unsupported arch"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55316 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #4

[Bug sanitizer/58841] std::bad_alloc not thrown with -fsanitize=address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58841 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #1