[Bug tree-optimization/82217] New: ICE on valid code at -O1 and above: in visit_phi, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:3908

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82217 Bug ID: 82217 Summary: ICE on valid code at -O1 and above: in visit_phi, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:3908 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug go/82208] exec_linux.go:197:27: error: reference to undefined name 'SYS_UNSHARE'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82208 --- Comment #2 from martin --- Created attachment 42175 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42175=edit make log make log

[Bug c/82216] internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82216 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- How are you configuring GCC?

[Bug c/82216] internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82216 --- Comment #2 from Dendi Suhubdy --- 1) Did you compile gcc-7.2 yourself? Yes 2) Did you compile GMP separately from GCC? No, I did the `./contrib/download_prerequisites` 3) Are you running GCC on a different machine than you compiled GMP?

[Bug c/82216] internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82216 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/82216] New: internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82216 Bug ID: 82216 Summary: internal compiler error: Illegal instruction Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug tree-optimization/79622] [6/7/8 Regression] Wrong code w/ -O2 -floop-nest-optimize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79622 --- Comment #4 from Sebastian Pop --- Yes, that phi node looks like a reduction. We need to handle the phi as a write to expose the loop carried reduction variable to the dependence analysis. I think your change goes in the right direction.

[Bug fortran/82215] Feature request to better support two pass compiling with gfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82215 --- Comment #2 from Lee Busby --- (In reply to kargl from comment #1) > It sound like you are looking for Fortran 2008's SUBMODULE feature. > See for example > > https://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2015/07/07/doctor-fortran-in-we-all- >

[Bug c++/82209] Compile error "X causes a section type conflict with Y" should provide more information

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82209 --- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Jeffrey Walton from comment #2) > (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #1) > > Do you have a complete standalone testcase we could use to reproduce? > > Thanks Eric. > > We were not able to

[Bug target/82158] _Noreturn functions that do return clobber caller's registers on ARM32 (but not other arches)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82158 --- Comment #3 from Peter Cordes --- (In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #2) > Falling off a noreturn function sounds like it could be another case to > insert __builtin_trap (), as we do in various cases of undefined behavior.

[Bug fortran/82215] Feature request to better support two pass compiling with gfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82215 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c++/82209] Compile error "X causes a section type conflict with Y" should provide more information

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82209 --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey Walton --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #1) > Do you have a complete standalone testcase we could use to reproduce? Thanks Eric. We were not able to reduce it to a minimal test case. That was part of the

[Bug fortran/82215] New: Feature request to better support two pass compiling with gfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82215 Bug ID: 82215 Summary: Feature request to better support two pass compiling with gfortran Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug ada/82141] [8 regression] raised RTSFIND.RE_NOT_AVAILABLE : rtsfind.adb:851 on darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82141 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[8 Regression] raised |[8 regression] raised

[Bug ada/82141] [8 Regression] raised RTSFIND.RE_NOT_AVAILABLE : rtsfind.adb:851 on darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82141 --- Comment #37 from Eric Botcazou --- Created attachment 42173 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42173=edit Reduced testcase To be compiled at -O2.

[Bug ada/81361] [8 regression] Broken exception handling at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81361 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.0 Summary|Exceptions

[Bug target/81647] inconsistent LTGT behavior at different optimization levels on AArch64.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81647 Steve Ellcey changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug c++/81314] [6/7/8 Regression] Undefined reference to a function with -fopenmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81314 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Sep 14 20:18:17 2017 New Revision: 252770 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252770=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/81314 * cp-gimplify.c (omp_var_to_track): Look through

[Bug c++/80947] [6/7/8 Regression] Different visibility for the lambda and its capture list members with -fvisibility=hidden

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80947 --- Comment #10 from Vlad Zolotarov --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9) > It says not to attach an archive containing the things we don't want (e.g. > sources without includes). And a .gz file is not an archive. "Please avoid

[Bug ada/81361] Exceptions mishandled (_Unwind_Resume() can't return)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81361 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug ada/81361] Exceptions mishandled (_Unwind_Resume() can't return)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81361 --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou --- As of today, once PR ada/82141 is worked around, I get: === acats Summary === # of expected passes2263 # of unexpected failures57 Native configuration is

[Bug c++/80947] [6/7/8 Regression] Different visibility for the lambda and its capture list members with -fvisibility=hidden

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80947 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- It says not to attach an archive containing the things we don't want (e.g. sources without includes). And a .gz file is not an archive.

[Bug jit/82174] Null name in one entry of the builtin_data array of jit-builtins.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82174 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug jit/82174] Null name in one entry of the builtin_data array of jit-builtins.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82174 --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm --- Author: dmalcolm Date: Thu Sep 14 19:30:26 2017 New Revision: 252769 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252769=gcc=rev Log: Fix crash accessing builtins in sanitizer.def and after (PR jit/82174) Calls to

[Bug tree-optimization/68823] [6/7/8 Regression][graphite] tramp3d-v4 compiled with -floop-nest-optimize crashes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68823 --- Comment #15 from Sebastian Pop --- > when DR_NUM_DIMENSIONS (dr1->dr) != DR_NUM_DIMENSIONS (dr2->dr) better "FAIL"? Yes. The patch looks good to me.

[Bug c++/80947] [6/7/8 Regression] Different visibility for the lambda and its capture list members with -fvisibility=hidden

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80947 --- Comment #8 from Vlad Zolotarov --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7) > Wow bugzilla really does suggest that. How stupid. And the (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6) > (In reply to Vlad Zolotarov from comment #5) > >

[Bug demangler/82195] Undemangleable lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82195 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |demangler --- Comment #3 from Nathan

[Bug target/81268] [avr] Support __gcc_isr pseudo-instruction for more efficient ISR prologues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81268 --- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #7) > (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #6) > > Author: aldyh > > Date: Wed Sep 13 16:56:35 2017 > > New Revision: 252421 > > > > URL:

[Bug c++/82209] Compile error "X causes a section type conflict with Y" should provide more information

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82209 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/80947] [6/7/8 Regression] Different visibility for the lambda and its capture list members with -fvisibility=hidden

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80947 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- Wow bugzilla really does suggest that. How stupid.

[Bug c++/80947] [6/7/8 Regression] Different visibility for the lambda and its capture list members with -fvisibility=hidden

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80947 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Vlad Zolotarov from comment #5) > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4) > > (In reply to Vlad Zolotarov from comment #1) > > > Created attachment 41472 [details] > > > an ii value

[Bug c++/80947] [6/7/8 Regression] Different visibility for the lambda and its capture list members with -fvisibility=hidden

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80947 --- Comment #5 from Vlad Zolotarov --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4) > (In reply to Vlad Zolotarov from comment #1) > > Created attachment 41472 [details] > > an ii value generated by g++-6 > > This is a URL not a preprocessed

[Bug rtl-optimization/82192] [5/6/7/8 Regression] gcc produces incorrect code with -O2 and bit-field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82192 --- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool --- I'll check if this patch regresses code quality on any target. Looks good though, thanks!

[Bug libstdc++/71187] declval() can be implemented without requiring a template instantiation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71187 --- Comment #3 from Eric Niebler --- I suppose, but I doubt it would matter much. add_rvalue_reference is not used nearly as frequently as declval (except in the current implementation of declval).

[Bug target/82214] New: [AArch64] Incorrect checking of LDP/STP offsets in aarch64_print_operand

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82214 Bug ID: 82214 Summary: [AArch64] Incorrect checking of LDP/STP offsets in aarch64_print_operand Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/81945] [8 Regression] ICE in operator[], at vec.h:749

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81945 --- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Don't know transformation done by graphite. In this case, graphite0 has an additional function dump: ;; Function at._loopfn.1 (at._loopfn.1, funcdef_no=2, decl_uid=1951, cgraph_uid=1,

[Bug c/82186] [7/8 Regression] ICE (segfault), VLA type with inlining

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82186 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug rtl-optimization/82192] [5/6/7/8 Regression] gcc produces incorrect code with -O2 and bit-field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82192 --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- So like this (untested) or somewhere else? --- gcc/combine.c.jj2017-09-14 10:04:56.0 +0200 +++ gcc/combine.c 2017-09-14 16:59:28.529783572 +0200 @@ -7444,7 +7444,14 @@ make_extraction

[Bug rtl-optimization/82192] [5/6/7/8 Regression] gcc produces incorrect code with -O2 and bit-field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82192 --- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool --- As far as I know this is undefined; combine should avoid making such out-of-range patterns (unless the existing insns are already like that, it will happily make even bigger garbage then).

[Bug libstdc++/71187] declval() can be implemented without requiring a template instantiation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71187 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug c/82186] [7/8 Regression] ICE (segfault), VLA type with inlining

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82186 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug middle-end/24639] [meta-bug] bug to track all Wuninitialized issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639 Bug 24639 depends on bug 82203, which changed state. Bug 82203 Summary: [5/6/7/8 regression] missing -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning with tree-vrp https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82203 What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/18501] [5/6/7/8 Regression] Missing 'used uninitialized' warning (CCP)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||arnd at linaro dot org --- Comment #80

[Bug middle-end/82203] [5/6/7/8 regression] missing -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning with tree-vrp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82203 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug target/81268] [avr] Support __gcc_isr pseudo-instruction for more efficient ISR prologues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81268 --- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay --- (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #6) > Author: aldyh > Date: Wed Sep 13 16:56:35 2017 > New Revision: 252421 > > URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252421=gcc=rev > Log: > gcc/ > PR

[Bug sanitizer/81929] [7/8 Regression] exponential slowdown in undefined behavior sanitizer for streaming

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81929 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug sanitizer/81068] Sanitizer memory leak in codecvt_utf8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81068 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81317 --- Comment #26 from Segher Boessenkool --- I still can't reproduce the problem, and I don't see where the null pointer is coming from either. Someone who can reproduce the problem will have to do some debugging. Sorry.

[Bug c++/82171] Cant use std::declval in concept testing map operator[]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82171 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid

[Bug c++/80947] [6/7/8 Regression] Different visibility for the lambda and its capture list members with -fvisibility=hidden

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80947 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic, visibility

[Bug c++/80947] Different visibility for the lambda and its capture list members with -fvisibility=hidden

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80947 --- Comment #3 from Avi Kivity --- A gentle ping, in the unlikely case that this bug was forgotten.

[Bug rtl-optimization/82192] [5/6/7/8 Regression] gcc produces incorrect code with -O2 and bit-field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82192 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Component|tree-optimization

[Bug jit/82174] Null name in one entry of the builtin_data array of jit-builtins.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82174 --- Comment #2 from David Malcolm --- The entry with the NULL name comes from this line in sanitizer.def: /* This has to come before all the sanitizer builtins. */ DEF_BUILTIN_STUB(BEGIN_SANITIZER_BUILTINS, (const char *)0) There's also

[Bug c++/81311] An std::ref argument calls copy constructor instead of template constructor in C++17 mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81311 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug c++/58796] throw nullptr not caught by catch(type*)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58796 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/58796] throw nullptr not caught by catch(type*)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58796 --- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #17) > Not all cases work though, nullptr cannot be caught as a pointer to member > function, and fixing that is difficult, so I'm keeping this open. That was

[Bug c++/82195] Undemangleable lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82195 --- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell --- Created attachment 42171 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42171=edit Further simplified Further simplification removes the inner lambda. The key problem is needing to name objects

[Bug tree-optimization/68823] [6/7/8 Regression][graphite] tramp3d-v4 compiled with -floop-nest-optimize crashes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68823 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/82192] [5/6/7/8 Regression] gcc produces incorrect code with -O2 and bit-field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82192 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #10) > Does the oddity that shifts truncate on x86, but bit operations do not come > into play here? x86 doesn't define SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED (though in this

[Bug lto/81968] [8 regression] early lto debug objects make Solaris ld SEGV

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968 --- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #10 from Richard Biener --- [...] >> Why does Solaris ld output warnings by default? Does it have an >> option to suppress them? It doesn't seem that it considers them

[Bug tree-optimization/68823] [6/7/8 Regression][graphite] tramp3d-v4 compiled with -floop-nest-optimize crashes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68823 --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener --- We apply blocking on int a[256][256]; void foo (void) { int *p = [4][7]; for (int i = 0; i < 256; ++i) for (int j = 0; j < 256; ++j) a[j][i] = a[j][i] * (*(int(*)[1])p)[0]; } but not when

[Bug c++/81314] [6/7/8 Regression] Undefined reference to a function with -fopenmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81314 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug target/82170] gcc optimizes int range-checking poorly on x86-64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82170 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Target|x86_64-*-* |x86_64-*-*, powerpc*-*-*

[Bug ada/82141] [8 Regression] raised RTSFIND.RE_NOT_AVAILABLE : rtsfind.adb:851 on darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82141 --- Comment #36 from simon at pushface dot org --- (In reply to simon from comment #28) > For the Darwin 15 build (+ patch to darwin.h from PR80556) was > configured with > > --prefix=/Volumes/Miscellaneous/tmp/opt/gcc-8.0.0 >

[Bug c++/81314] [6/7/8 Regression] Undefined reference to a function with -fopenmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81314 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Testcase without STL: // { dg-do link } template struct S { S () { s = 0; } S (const S ) { s = x.s; } ~S () {} int s; }; void foo (S<2> ) { #pragma omp taskloop for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i)

[Bug target/78994] -Ofast makes aarch64 C++ benchmark slower for A53

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78994 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/81037] Xcode 9 requires back ports on gcc-5-branch for bootstrapping under Xcode 9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81037 --- Comment #12 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #11) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) > > The gcc-6 backport is ok (if you want to go ahead). > > Is (a suitably modified) version also OK for gcc-5? >

[Bug libstdc++/82212] libstdc++ makes (integer|index)_sequence available with -std=c++11, but they're C++14 features

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82212 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug libstdc++/82212] libstdc++ makes (integer|index)_sequence available with -std=c++11, but they're C++14 features

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82212 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/82213] Please warn about const rvalue reference parameters [void func(const T&&);]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82213 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug tree-optimization/79622] [6/7/8 Regression] Wrong code w/ -O2 -floop-nest-optimize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79622 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||spop at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug c/80832] GCC_COLORS

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80832 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Why it should be so fine-grained? As for caret, it is documented what it is elsewhere in the documentation (the ^ character pointing at the source location below the source line), but it actually changed in

[Bug rtl-optimization/80481] Unoptimal additional copy instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80481 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Senkevich --- Reload phase adds insn 1817 (1) (insn 856 855 1817 136 (set (reg:V16SI 22 xmm1 [orig:985 vect__72.36 ] [985]) (unspec:V16SI [ (mem:V16SI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 39 r10 [orig:206

[Bug middle-end/66462] GCC isinf/isnan/... builtins cause sNaN exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66462 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #10 from

[Bug other/78366] target_clones does not generate resovler function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78366 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/82213] New: Please warn about const rvalue reference parameters [void func(const T&&);]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82213 Bug ID: 82213 Summary: Please warn about const rvalue reference parameters [void func(const T&&);] Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug bootstrap/81037] Xcode 9 requires back ports on gcc-5-branch for bootstrapping under Xcode 9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81037 --- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) > The gcc-6 backport is ok (if you want to go ahead). Is (a suitably modified) version also OK for gcc-5? (I checked the posted one on Darwin and Linux and it

[Bug target/82170] gcc optimizes int range-checking poorly on x86-64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82170 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- To summarize IRC discussions about this, the first step should be to introduce SEXT_EXPR (split from Prathamesh's patch, improve), then add match.pd canonicalization of these range testing to SEXT_EXPR +

[Bug middle-end/32911] Function __attribute__ ((idempotent))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32911 --- Comment #5 from Philip Withnall --- Bug filed against Clang with the same request here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34600

[Bug libstdc++/82212] New: libstdc++ makes (integer|index)_sequence available with -std=c++11, but they're C++14 features

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82212 Bug ID: 82212 Summary: libstdc++ makes (integer|index)_sequence available with -std=c++11, but they're C++14 features Product: gcc Version: unknown URL:

[Bug ipa/81214] GCC target_clone support does not work for global functions with no references

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81214 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/82163] [8 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: in check_loop_closed_ssa_use, at tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:707

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82163 amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81346 --- Comment #18 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Gergö Barany from comment #17) > the division used to be replaced by a shift that updated the condition code > register (again, on ARM; r250337): (just my opinion) At a high level (gimple),

[Bug driver/81829] [7 Regression] /usr/bin/gcc-{ar,nm,ranlib} segfault without arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81829 --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 42168 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42168=edit Patch candidate So I eventually decided to remove the smartness in wrappers, let's make it simple. I've been testing

[Bug tree-optimization/80996] gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-12.c XPASSes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80996 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED URL|

[Bug target/82170] gcc optimizes int range-checking poorly on x86-64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82170 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- More complete testcase: extern inline int f1 (long long n) { return -__INT_MAX__ - 1 <= n && n <= __INT_MAX__; } extern inline int f2 (long long n) { return n == (int) n; } extern inline int f3 (unsigned

[Bug tree-optimization/80996] gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-12.c XPASSes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80996 --- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth --- Author: ro Date: Thu Sep 14 09:20:18 2017 New Revision: 252754 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252754=gcc=rev Log: Don't xfail gcc.dg/vect/vect-multitypes-12.c on 32-bit SPARC (PR

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81346 --- Comment #17 from Gergö Barany --- Thanks for fixing this. I did notice a small thing that might be considered a tiny regression due to the fix. If the divisor is a small power of 2, as in the following example: int fn1(char p1) { long a;

[Bug c/82210] [5/6/7/8 Regression] Having _Alignas in a struct with VLAs causes writing to one array to overwrite another

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82210 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/82211] [8 Regression] ICE error: non-cold basic block 32 reachable only by paths crossing the cold partition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82211 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.0

[Bug tree-optimization/82211] New: [8 Regression] ICE error: non-cold basic block 32 reachable only by paths crossing the cold partition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82211 Bug ID: 82211 Summary: [8 Regression] ICE error: non-cold basic block 32 reachable only by paths crossing the cold partition Product: gcc Version: unknown Status:

[Bug target/81325] -fcompare-debug failure on ppc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81325 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Sep 14 08:07:30 2017 New Revision: 252752 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252752=gcc=rev Log: PR target/81325 * cfgbuild.c (find_bb_boundaries): Ignore debug

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81631 --- Comment #3 from Tobias Jordan --- Hi, thanks for taking a look, and thanks for your explanation. As far as I understand it, it's somewhat intuitive that the qualifiers apply to array elements and not the array type itself. What bugs me is

[Bug c/82210] New: Having _Alignas in a struct with VLAs causes writing to one array to overwrite another

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82210 Bug ID: 82210 Summary: Having _Alignas in a struct with VLAs causes writing to one array to overwrite another Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/82209] New: Compile error "X causes a section type conflict with Y" should provide more information

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82209 Bug ID: 82209 Summary: Compile error "X causes a section type conflict with Y" should provide more information Product: gcc Version: 6.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug go/82208] exec_linux.go:197:27: error: reference to undefined name 'SYS_UNSHARE'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82208 --- Comment #1 from martin --- I used the gcc-trunk source: nas-02-90-38:/media/gcc-trunk# /opt/svn-1.9.7/bin/svn info Path: . Working Copy Root Path: /c/media/gcc-trunk URL: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk Relative URL: ^/trunk Repository Root:

[Bug go/82208] New: exec_linux.go:197:27: error: reference to undefined name 'SYS_UNSHARE'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82208 Bug ID: 82208 Summary: exec_linux.go:197:27: error: reference to undefined name 'SYS_UNSHARE' Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal