[Bug c++/81632] spurious -Wterminate warning about throw in destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81632 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug bootstrap/81638] [7 Regression] AIX bootstrap failure due to Recover GOTO predictor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81638 --- Comment #4 from David Edelsohn --- The test around the setting of incl is the same as the test around the use of incl at the place of the false positive uninitialized error for (i = 0; i < vec->count; ++i) incl = ... if

[Bug bootstrap/81638] [7 Regression] AIX bootstrap failure due to Recover GOTO predictor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81638 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Just for reference we have: for (i = 0; i < vec->count; ++i) { incl = (struct xcoff_incl *) vec->vec.base + i; if (incl->begin <= lnnoptr && lnnoptr <= incl->end) break; } if

[Bug c++/81609] incompatible extern C declarations of the same extern function at local scope accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81609 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug bootstrap/81638] [7 Regression] AIX bootstrap failure due to Recover GOTO predictor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81638 --- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn --- Created attachment 41877 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41877=edit pre-processed xcoff.c compiled on AIX 7.2

[Bug bootstrap/81638] [7 Regression] AIX bootstrap failure due to Recover GOTO predictor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81638 David Edelsohn changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/81638] New: AIX bootstrap failure due to Recover GOTO predictor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81638 Bug ID: 81638 Summary: AIX bootstrap failure due to Recover GOTO predictor Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c/39985] Type qualifiers not actually ignored on function return type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39985 --- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- In C, in C11 mode, type qualifiers are completely ignored on function return types, including not affecting type compatibility, after my commit: r236231 | jsm28 | 2016-05-13 21:35:39 +

[Bug tree-optimization/80925] [8 Regression] vect peeling failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925 --- Comment #19 from Steve Ellcey --- Author: sje Date: Mon Jul 31 21:44:34 2017 New Revision: 250752 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250752=gcc=rev Log: 2017-07-31 Steve Ellcey PR tree-optimization/80925

[Bug c/79696] missing -Wunused-result on calls to malloc() and calloc()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79696 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED Ever confirmed|1

[Bug c/80130] Wrong diagnostic: dereferencing type-punned pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80130 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug target/81622] [7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid altivec code with ppc64{,le}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622 --- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9) > I take back the ARRAY_TYPE thing, apparently it is different for C vs. C++, > in C one always sees there POINTER_TYPE, while in C++ always ARRAY_TYPE. > Anyway,

[Bug target/81622] [7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid altivec code with ppc64{,le}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622 --- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt --- I went spelunking and found that the ARRAY_TYPE change was added here: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision=237077. Looks like a C++ implementation detail.

[Bug testsuite/81626] Need effective target omp_target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81626 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Schwinge --- (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #4) > (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #3) > > Yeah, I suppose you just need to remove a "--disable-multilib" from your > > nvptx offloading GCC build

[Bug tree-optimization/81637] New: [8 regression] compilation of 416.games from spec2006 fails starting with r250670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81637 Bug ID: 81637 Summary: [8 regression] compilation of 416.games from spec2006 fails starting with r250670 Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug testsuite/80759] gcc.target/x86_64/abi/ms-sysv FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759 --- Comment #61 from Daniel Santos --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #60) > At revision r250610 I still see > > WARNING: Could not generate > /opt/gcc/build_w/gcc/testsuite/gcc/ms-sysv/ms-sysv-generated.h Thank you for the

[Bug c++/81636] New: Confusing warning message containing "#‘obj_type_ref’ not supported by expression#"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81636 Bug ID: 81636 Summary: Confusing warning message containing "#‘obj_type_ref’ not supported by expression#" Product: gcc Version: 7.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/81632] spurious -Wterminate warning about throw in destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81632 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug target/81635] New: nvptx SLP test cases regressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81635 Bug ID: 81635 Summary: nvptx SLP test cases regressions Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug c/79959] -Wimplicit-fallthrough doesn't recognize some more complex exit cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79959 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/29970] mixing ({...}) with VLA leads to massive breakage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29970 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/81622] [7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid altivec code with ppc64{,le}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #41875|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c/79696] missing -Wunused-result on calls to malloc() and calloc()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79696 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/81622] [7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid altivec code with ppc64{,le}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- I take back the ARRAY_TYPE thing, apparently it is different for C vs. C++, in C one always sees there POINTER_TYPE, while in C++ always ARRAY_TYPE. Anyway, your patch seems to be wrong, POINTER_TYPE_P's

[Bug c/79667] spurious -Wunused-variable on a local array of struct declared unused

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79667 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/79688] ICE with a RTL test-case and -O1 provided

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79688 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/81622] [7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid altivec code with ppc64{,le}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622 --- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt --- I should clarify that Richard reviewed the VEC_LD / VEC_ST code chunks. The other pieces predate me. The stylistic issues were copied from another place at the time and I missed those, sorry about that...

[Bug tree-optimization/81633] [7/8 Regression] Incorrect floating point result with tree vectoriser

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81633 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- I'm afraid the tree-vect-slp.c change is completely wrong, the original change in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg01090.html if the oprnd == NULL has child_index++; looks reasonable to me. It

[Bug target/81622] [7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid altivec code with ppc64{,le}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622 --- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt --- This code was reviewed and approved by Richard back when it was first written. It's been some time since this was written, so I don't recall the origin of the array type, but it was definitely necessary.

[Bug bootstrap/81033] [8 Regression] Revision r249019 breaks bootstrap on darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81033 --- Comment #25 from Dominique d'Humieres --- I have posted the results on darwin for r250610 at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2017-07/msg02582.html. I see 646 failures compared to 318 with r249104. I am planning to open new Pos for

[Bug testsuite/80759] gcc.target/x86_64/abi/ms-sysv FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/81633] [7/8 Regression] Incorrect floating point result with tree vectoriser

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81633 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- In *.ifcvt dump we have _69 = identity[j_31][0]; _71 = _69 * _69; tmp[j_31][0] = _71; _77 = identity[j_31][1]; _78 = _69 * _77; tmp[j_31][1] = _78; _84 = identity[j_31][2]; _85 = _69 * _84;

[Bug fortran/81615] save-temps and gfortran produces *.f90 files instead of *.i or *i90 files

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81615 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig

[Bug tree-optimization/81633] [7/8 Regression] Incorrect floating point result with tree vectoriser

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81633 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- In -fdump-tree-vect-details, the difference with this commit is: --- pr81633.c.149t.vect.239539 2017-07-31 12:00:11.0 -0400 +++ pr81633.c.149t.vect.239542 2017-07-31 12:00:33.0 -0400 @@

[Bug tree-optimization/81633] [7/8 Regression] Incorrect floating point result with tree vectoriser

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81633 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/81490] x86: Handling of symbol ranges for __seg_fs/__seg_gs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81490 --- Comment #15 from Uroš Bizjak --- I'm testing the following patch: --cut here-- Index: i386.c === --- i386.c (revision 250745) +++ i386.c (working copy) @@ -19421,8

[Bug testsuite/81626] Need effective target omp_target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81626 --- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #3) > Yeah, I suppose you just need to remove a "--disable-multilib" from your > nvptx offloading GCC build configuration, so that the "mgomp" multilib gets > built

[Bug target/81622] [7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid altivec code with ppc64{,le}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- The aligned computation also looks like invalid IL, BIT_AND_EXPR should not have pointer arguments I believe (though please double check with Richard), so it should be first cast to corresponding integral

[Bug c++/81634] New: Some types are incorrectly detected as not standard layout

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81634 Bug ID: 81634 Summary: Some types are incorrectly detected as not standard layout Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/81622] [7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid altivec code with ppc64{,le}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug c++/81618] Warn for unused functions declared in local scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81618 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug testsuite/81626] Need effective target omp_target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81626 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|openacc | Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/81622] [7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid altivec code with ppc64{,le}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622 --- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt --- Created attachment 41874 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41874=edit Patch under test

[Bug target/81622] [7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid altivec code with ppc64{,le}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug fortran/81615] save-temps and gfortran produces *.f90 files instead of *.i or *i90 files

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81615 --- Comment #2 from Ben Barrowes --- Then how does one get a preprocessed/savetemp file from an existing *.f90 file? In the case of C, preprocessed and temp files have different extensions and are thus easily identified after compiling. For

[Bug target/81622] [7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid altivec code with ppc64{,le}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/81633] New: Incorrect floating point result with tree vectoriser

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81633 Bug ID: 81633 Summary: Incorrect floating point result with tree vectoriser Product: gcc Version: 7.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/81622] [7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid altivec code with ppc64{,le}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81622 --- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt --- Do you see the same behavior with "vec_ld (1, 2);" ?

[Bug libgomp/81591] segmentation fault when using priorities of nested tasks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81591 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Before that is available, perhaps backtrace from the gomp_fatal call in the _LIBGOMP_CHECKING_ enabled build might be also useful.

[Bug libgomp/81591] segmentation fault when using priorities of nested tasks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81591 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- I think we need a reproducer for this. Can you provide something?

[Bug c/51515] Unable to forward declare nested functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51515 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug libstdc++/81599] Error in documentation of std::stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81599 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/81599] Error in documentation of std::stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81599 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Mon Jul 31 13:44:16 2017 New Revision: 250743 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250743=gcc=rev Log: PR libstdc++/81599 * include/bits/stl_stack.h: Fix typo.

[Bug fortran/81615] save-temps and gfortran produces *.f90 files instead of *.i or *i90 files

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81615 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/81632] New: spurious -Wterminate warning about throw in destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81632 Bug ID: 81632 Summary: spurious -Wterminate warning about throw in destructor Product: gcc Version: 7.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug libstdc++/81599] Error in documentation of std::stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81599 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug middle-end/81400] Stack smashing not caught by stack protector strong and allowing me to stack smash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81400 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug target/25967] Add attribute naked for x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25967 --- Comment #21 from Uroš Bizjak --- The above patch is needed to pass arguments to a naked function. Please note that arguments can be reliably passed only in registers, so regparm convention is necessary for x86_32. gcc.target/i386/naked-3.c

[Bug libstdc++/81599] Error in documentation of std::stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81599 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/25967] Add attribute naked for x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25967 --- Comment #20 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Mon Jul 31 13:11:59 2017 New Revision: 250742 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250742=gcc=rev Log: PR target/25967 * config/i386/i386.c

[Bug testsuite/81624] [8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr59501-3a.c scan-assembler-not and[^\n\r]*sp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81624 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC|hjl at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at redhat dot com

[Bug debug/81307] [8 regression] g++.dg/debug/debug9.C -gstabs FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81307 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Looking at gdb I see though that the block_address_function_relative variable is computed from the object format, so I'm afraid it has to be relative. Another option is to pretend there isn't just one

[Bug debug/81307] [8 regression] g++.dg/debug/debug9.C -gstabs FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81307 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug testsuite/81626] Need effective target omp_target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81626 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Ugh, that is going to be a maintainance nightmare for the testsuite. Why and how are you configuring your accel compiler without the OpenMP support?

[Bug tree-optimization/81588] [7/8 Regression] Wrong code at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81588 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #41860|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug hsa/81477] HSA offloading regressions: "function cannot be cloned"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81477 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug hsa/81477] HSA offloading regressions: "function cannot be cloned"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81477 --- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor --- Author: jamborm Date: Mon Jul 31 11:18:31 2017 New Revision: 250738 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250738=gcc=rev Log: [PR 81477] Set versionable regardless of optimization level 2017-07-31 Martin

[Bug testsuite/81626] Need effective target omp_target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81626 --- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries --- Created attachment 41871 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41871=edit Tentative patch

[Bug c/81631] New: -Wcast-qual false positive for pointer to array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81631 Bug ID: 81631 Summary: -Wcast-qual false positive for pointer to array Product: gcc Version: 7.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug middle-end/81400] Stack smashing not caught by stack protector strong and allowing me to stack smash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81400 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug fortran/44292] [libgfortran ABI breakage] Increase internal size of RECL= of the OPEN statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44292 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2010-05-30 05:38:00 |2017-7-31 CC|

[Bug c/81630] powl returns values with insufficient accuracy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81630 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/25967] Add attribute naked for x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25967 --- Comment #19 from Daniel Santos --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #18) > Implemented for gcc 8. Awesome! There are actually a number of times over the years that I've wished this were implemented, thanks! :)

[Bug c/81629] redefined memcpy leads to segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81629 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/81614] Should -mtune-ctrl=partial_reg_stall be turned by default?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81614 --- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka --- As a historical note, X86_TUNE_PARTIAL_REG_STALL was moved to historical relics at the time both current designs (Penium 4 and Athlon) were using PARTIAL_REG_DEPENDENCY. I believed that main reason for this

[Bug target/25967] Add attribute naked for x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25967 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/81630] New: powl returns values with insufficient accuracy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81630 Bug ID: 81630 Summary: powl returns values with insufficient accuracy Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug target/25967] Add attribute naked for x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25967 --- Comment #17 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Mon Jul 31 10:22:41 2017 New Revision: 250736 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250736=gcc=rev Log: PR target/25967 * config/i386/i386.c

[Bug c++/81607] Conditional operator: "type mismatch in shift expression" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81607 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug target/81614] Should -mtune-ctrl=partial_reg_stall be turned by default?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81614 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug tree-optimization/81592] spurious -Wformat-overflow warning with -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81592 --- Comment #2 from Arnd Bergmann --- I have scanned the linux kernel sources for related bogus warnings and found six others like this one that do not show up using gcc-7.1.1 without UBSAN but do show up with UBSAN added in:

[Bug c/81629] redefined memcpy leads to segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81629 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug middle-end/81629] redefined memcpy leads to segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81629 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code

[Bug go/81617] mksigtab.sh fails to resolve NSIG with glibc 2.26

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81617 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Version|8.0 |7.0 Target

[Bug c++/81607] Conditional operator: "type mismatch in shift expression" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81607 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 31 Jul 2017, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81607 > > --- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek --- > I'm actually testing this > > ---

[Bug c++/81607] Conditional operator: "type mismatch in shift expression" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81607 --- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek --- I'm actually testing this --- a/gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c +++ b/gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c @@ -2314,9 +2314,9 @@ cp_fold (tree x) /* A COND_EXPR might have incompatible types in branches if one or both

[Bug c++/81607] Conditional operator: "type mismatch in shift expression" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81607 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 31 Jul 2017, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81607 > > --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- > Actually I think richi's fix is the

[Bug sanitizer/81604] Ubsan type reporting can be bogus in some cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81604 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug debug/81307] [8 regression] g++.dg/debug/debug9.C -gstabs FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81307 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug debug/81623] [8 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/debug/debug9.C -gstabs -O3 (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81623 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/81581] runtime checks for DIM argument of intrinsic SUM missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81581 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/81581] runtime checks for DIM argument of intrinsic SUM missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81581 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Mon Jul 31 09:34:36 2017 New Revision: 250735 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250735=gcc=rev Log: 2017-07-31 Thomas Koenig PR fortran/81581

[Bug c/81629] redefined memcpy leads to segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81629 --- Comment #1 from Frédéric Besson --- Created attachment 41869 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41869=edit preprcessed source

[Bug c/81629] New: redefined memcpy leads to segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81629 Bug ID: 81629 Summary: redefined memcpy leads to segmentation fault Product: gcc Version: 7.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c++/81607] Conditional operator: "type mismatch in shift expression" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81607 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- Actually I think richi's fix is the right one. Let me test.

[Bug sanitizer/81604] Ubsan type reporting can be bogus in some cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81604 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Jul 31 09:29:58 2017 New Revision: 250733 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250733=gcc=rev Log: PR sanitizer/81604 * ubsan.c (ubsan_type_descriptor): For

[Bug c++/43745] [avr] g++ puts VTABLES in SRAM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43745 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/81628] New: Backport r250637 and r250638 to the powerpcspe* target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81628 Bug ID: 81628 Summary: Backport r250637 and r250638 to the powerpcspe* target Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug sanitizer/81604] Ubsan type reporting can be bogus in some cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81604 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Jul 31 08:56:03 2017 New Revision: 250732 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250732=gcc=rev Log: PR sanitizer/81604 * ubsan.c (ubsan_type_descriptor): For

[Bug sanitizer/81530] [8 Regression] ICE in add_stmt in gcc/cp/semantics.c:387

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81530 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

  1   2   >