[Bug tree-optimization/82646] New: bogus -Wstringop-overflow with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 on strncpy with range to a member array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82646 Bug ID: 82646 Summary: bogus -Wstringop-overflow with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 on strncpy with range to a member array Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/61593] Support '#pragma mark - foo' on non-Darwin targets (by simply ignoring it without warning)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61593 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/82645] New: missing -Wstringop-overflow on strcpy overflowing a member array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82645 Bug ID: 82645 Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow on strcpy overflowing a member array Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug preprocessor/48839] #error should terminate compilation - similar to missing #include

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48839 --- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #6) > Maybe time to actually send something to gcc-patches for discussion? Please do!

[Bug libgcc/82635] std::thread's join broken on FreeBSD with all GCCs >= 5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82635 --- Comment #10 from Hannes Hauswedell --- > Could you please tell us the FreeBSD version and arch you run on? uname -ra FreeBSD celegans.imp.fu-berlin.de 11.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 11.1-RELEASE #0 r321309: Fri Jul 21

[Bug libstdc++/82644] Non-standard hypergeometric special functions defined in strict modes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82644 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- While I'm on the subject, we fail to import the special functions into the global namespace in (because the wrong macro is checked): #include namespace test { using std::beta; // OK using ::beta;

[Bug libstdc++/82644] New: Non-standard hypergeometric special functions defined in strict modes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82644 Bug ID: 82644 Summary: Non-standard hypergeometric special functions defined in strict modes Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug libstdc++/82644] Non-standard hypergeometric special functions defined in strict modes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82644 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/57096] Allocatable variable is not behaved as expected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug fortran/59276] Incorrect error message with modules of different gfortran versions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59276 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug gcov-profile/82633] gcov does not handle removed functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82633 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- You might need -fkeep-static-functions also.

[Bug gcov-profile/82633] gcov does not handle removed functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82633 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/57096] Allocatable variable is not behaved as expected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57096 --- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres --- I get gA%next(): 2 gA%next(): 4 gA%next(): 6 gAp%next(): 2 gAp%next(): 4 gAp%next(): 6 for 4.8 up to trunk (8.0).

[Bug fortran/53478] gfortran segfaults when module name clashes with C binding name of procedure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53478 --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > The test case in comment 0 and comment 3 are invalid in Fortran 2003; > I think they are valid in Fortran 2008 (cf. PR 48858 comment 9). However, > I need a quiet moment to disentangle the standard

[Bug fortran/82622] [PDT] ICE in structure_alloc_comps, at fortran/trans-array.c:8963

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82622 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/81924] [6 Regression] ICE: in simplify_binary_operation_1, at simplify-rtx.c:3678 on powerpc64le-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81924 --- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt --- Er, HERE is the simple patch: Index: gcc/config/rs6000/vsx.md === --- gcc/config/rs6000/vsx.md(revision 253957) +++

[Bug target/81924] [6 Regression] ICE: in simplify_binary_operation_1, at simplify-rtx.c:3678 on powerpc64le-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81924 --- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt --- Matthias, the following appears to fix this problem for gcc-5-branch. Obviously the branch is closed to further development, but if you want to consider carrying this patch, let me know and I will give it a

[Bug target/81924] [6 Regression] ICE: in simplify_binary_operation_1, at simplify-rtx.c:3678 on powerpc64le-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81924 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/82643] lambda capture breaks constexpr-ness of non-static const constexpr member call on non-constexpr value/variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82643 --- Comment #3 from bastien penavayre --- Created attachment 42427 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42427=edit source code

[Bug c++/82643] lambda capture breaks constexpr-ness of non-static const constexpr member call on non-constexpr value/variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82643 --- Comment #2 from bastien penavayre --- wrong file attached, see second comment.

[Bug c++/82643] lambda capture breaks constexpr-ness of non-static const constexpr member call on non-constexpr value/variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82643 --- Comment #1 from bastien penavayre --- Comment on attachment 42426 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42426 source code int main() { struct A { constexpr int operator()() const { return 42; } };

[Bug c++/82643] New: lambda capture breaks constexpr-ness of non-static const constexpr member call on non-constexpr value/variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82643 Bug ID: 82643 Summary: lambda capture breaks constexpr-ness of non-static const constexpr member call on non-constexpr value/variable Product: gcc Version: 8.0

[Bug libgcc/82635] std::thread's join broken on FreeBSD with all GCCs >= 5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82635 --- Comment #9 from Andreas Tobler --- Could you please tell us the FreeBSD version and arch you run on? uname -ra

[Bug target/82268] [8 regression] i386/pr82196-1.c fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82268 Daniel Santos changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.santos at pobox dot com ---

[Bug libgcc/82635] std::thread's join broken on FreeBSD with all GCCs >= 5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82635 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW CC|

[Bug c++/80985] -Wnoexcept-type should not produce a warning for inlined template functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80985 Barry Revzin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com ---

[Bug c++/82640] gcc doesn't show errors on anonymous local variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82640 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid

[Bug rtl-optimization/82628] [8 Regression] wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu in the 32-bit mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82628 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Testcase for determining the sbbb and adcb behavior for all operands: int main (void) { int cf, x, y; for (cf = 0; cf < 2; cf++) for (x = 0; x <= 255; x++) for (y = 0; y <= 255; y++)

[Bug target/81924] [6 Regression] ICE: in simplify_binary_operation_1, at simplify-rtx.c:3678 on powerpc64le-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81924 --- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt --- The patch applies cleanly to gcc-6-branch, and I can certainly commit that (although I can't show a case where it can happen with present behavior, it should be cleaned up). For gcc-5-branch, the patch

[Bug ada/82642] New: Dynamic predicate for a record should give a warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82642 Bug ID: 82642 Summary: Dynamic predicate for a record should give a warning Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/79795] [6/7/8 Regression] Fortran ICE in resolve_symbol starting with r163221

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79795 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/79795] [6/7/8 Regression] Fortran ICE in resolve_symbol starting with r163221

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79795 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Fri Oct 20 19:26:35 2017 New Revision: 253956 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253956=gcc=rev Log: 2017-10-20 Thomas Koenig Backport from trunk

[Bug rtl-optimization/82628] [8 Regression] wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu in the 32-bit mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82628 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- So, for the -1UL <= 1UL comparison, the cmpl instruction sets the CF, and then sbbl subtracts -1U (2nd operand) + 1U (CF) from 0U (1st operand/destination) and sets CF flag, but the RTL representation of

[Bug middle-end/82636] powerpc: Unnecessary copy of __ieee128 parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82636 --- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner --- Created attachment 42425 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42425=edit Post reload dump file

[Bug middle-end/82636] powerpc: Unnecessary copy of __ieee128 parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82636 --- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner --- Created attachment 42424 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42424=edit Reload dump file

[Bug middle-end/82636] powerpc: Unnecessary copy of __ieee128 parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82636 --- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner --- Created attachment 42423 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42423=edit LRA dump file

[Bug middle-end/82636] powerpc: Unnecessary copy of __ieee128 parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82636 --- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner --- Created attachment 42422 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42422=edit Simpler test case that does not use asm

[Bug middle-end/82636] powerpc: Unnecessary copy of __ieee128 parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82636 --- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner --- This looks like a reload bug. I see the same thing with automatically generated fmas: --> cat foo06c.c __ieee128 __fmaf128_power9 (__ieee128 x, __ieee128 y, __ieee128 z) { return (x * y) + z; } After

[Bug target/82641] Unable to enable crc32 for a certain function with target attribute on ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82641 --- Comment #1 from Yichao Yu --- I've found a workaround in https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2017-04/msg00171.html but it's extremely ugly (albeit also very clever...).

[Bug ada/82639] Legal program rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82639 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug ada/82638] Legal program rejected with a weird error message

adb +===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+ | 8.0.0 20171020 (experimental) [trunk revision 253921] (x86_64-suse-linux) | | Assert_Failure atree.adb:979 | | Error detected at uri.ads:3:1

[Bug ada/82637] Compiler crash

adb +===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+ | 8.0.0 20171020 (experimental) [trunk revision 253921] (x86_64-suse-linux) | | Assert_Failure atree.adb:979 | | Error detected at uri.ads:4:1|

[Bug ada/82639] Legal program rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82639 --- Comment #1 from Victor Porton --- This was an example of a legal Ada program which does not compile with GNAT. Workaround: Don't use a private type here.

[Bug fortran/79795] [6/7/8 Regression] Fortran ICE in resolve_symbol starting with r163221

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79795 --- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Fri Oct 20 18:01:36 2017 New Revision: 253951 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253951=gcc=rev Log: 2017-10-20 Thomas Koenig Backport from trunk

[Bug target/82641] New: Unable to enable crc32 for a certain function with target attribute on ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82641 Bug ID: 82641 Summary: Unable to enable crc32 for a certain function with target attribute on ARM Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug rtl-optimization/82628] [8 Regression] wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu in the 32-bit mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82628 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Ah, and nonzero_bits ((reg:SI 93), SImode) == 1. So (plus:SI (ltu:SI (reg:SI 93) (const_int -1)) (const_int -1)) is also (const_int 0). reg:SI 93 is even constant 1. So in: (insn 19 18 20 4 (set (reg:CC

[Bug c++/82640] New: gcc doesn't show errors on anonymous local variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82640 Bug ID: 82640 Summary: gcc doesn't show errors on anonymous local variables Product: gcc Version: 7.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug ada/82639] New: Legal program rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82639 Bug ID: 82639 Summary: Legal program rejected Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: ada Assignee:

[Bug libgcc/82635] std::thread's join broken on FreeBSD with all GCCs >= 5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82635 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |libgcc --- Comment #7 from Andrew

[Bug rtl-optimization/82628] [8 Regression] wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu in the 32-bit mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82628 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- There is another important detail, num_sign_bit_copies ((reg/v:DI 89 [ d ]), DImode) == 64. So, in the end, if the whole DI 89 pseudo is non-zero, then (plus:SI (ltu:SI (reg:SI 93) (subreg:SI

[Bug rtl-optimization/82628] [8 Regression] wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu in the 32-bit mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82628 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- The problem seems to be in if_then_else_cond, which is called on (plus:SI (ltu:SI (reg:SI 93) (subreg:SI (reg/v:DI 89 [ d ]) 0)) (subreg:SI (reg/v:DI 89 [ d ]) 4)) and returns a bogus thing -

[Bug libfortran/82233] [6/7/8 Regression] execute_command_line causes program to stop when command fails (or does not exist)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82233 --- Comment #20 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #19) > (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #17) > > Thanks for your effort; I'm still seeing noise though. > > > > Sorry, I'm not fluent in fortran: is there a

[Bug target/82626] -msse and -mfpmath=sse Causes __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__ to be -1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82626 --- Comment #13 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- Strictly, all x86 excess precision cases are indeterminable (semantics of -1) except for the case where -fexcess-precision=standard is used (requires front-end support, present for C

[Bug target/82626] -msse and -mfpmath=sse Causes __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__ to be -1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82626 --- Comment #12 from Keith Marshall --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10) > While defining float_t to float and double_t to long double for -msse > -mfpmath=sse is a reasoanble choice, Actually, it is the correct choice, but... >

[Bug target/82626] -msse and -mfpmath=sse Causes __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__ to be -1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82626 --- Comment #11 from Keith Marshall --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8) > Indeed, this really is a mingw bug. Wrong! It is *both* a MinGW bug, *and* a GCC bug. The difference is that I am fully committed to fixing the MinGW bug,

[Bug c++/82629] OpenMP 4.5 Target Region mangling problem

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82629 --- Comment #3 from Thorsten Kurth --- One more thing, In the test case I send, please change the $(XPPFLAGS) in the main.x target compilation to $(CXXFLAGS), so that -fopenmp is used at link time also. However, that does not solve the problem

[Bug c++/82629] OpenMP 4.5 Target Region mangling problem

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82629 --- Comment #2 from Thorsten Kurth --- Created attachment 42420 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42420=edit This is the test case demonstrating the problem. Linking this code will produce: -bash-4.2$ make main.x g++ -O2

[Bug c++/81896] omp target enter data not recognized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81896 --- Comment #2 from Thorsten Kurth --- Hello, another data point: when I create a dummy variable, it works: for example alias data to tmp and then use tmp. I think this is not working for the same reason one cannot arbitrarily put class member

[Bug c++/82635] std::thread's join broken on FreeBSD with all GCCs >= 5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82635 --- Comment #6 from Hannes Hauswedell --- Sorry, I forgot the stack trace. It wasn't helpful to me: (gdb) bt #0 uw_frame_state_for (context=context@entry=0x801c00e20, fs=fs@entry=0x801c00b70) at

[Bug libgomp/80859] Performance Problems with OpenMP 4.5 support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80859 --- Comment #28 from Thorsten Kurth --- Hello, can someone please give me an update on this bug? Best Regards Thorsten Kurth

[Bug target/82626] -msse and -mfpmath=sse Causes __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__ to be -1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82626 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- The footnote says: The types float_t and double_t are intended to be the implementation’s most efficient types at least as wide as float and double, respectively. For FLT_EVAL_METHOD equal 0, 1, or 2, the

[Bug c++/81896] omp target enter data not recognized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81896 --- Comment #1 from Thorsten Kurth --- Hello, is this report actually being worked on? It is in unconfirmed state for quite a while now. Best Regards Thorsten Kurth

[Bug target/82626] -msse and -mfpmath=sse Causes __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__ to be -1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82626 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- I doubt many people use those types at all in C++, so not defining them probably won't upset anybody. On the other hand, what we do today results in an unavoidable error. This is probably a better way to

[Bug sanitizer/82595] bootstrap fails in libsanitizer on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82595 --- Comment #11 from Eric Gallager --- My testresults are here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2017-10/msg01751.html Lots of sanitizer-related FAILs, but they're probably my fault due to the bogus --without-pic I added.

[Bug debug/82630] Bogus DW_AT_GNU_call_site_value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82630 --- Comment #6 from Rafael Avila de Espindola --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > > The problem is the assembler's special treatment of _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_, > > that > > .long

[Bug other/78808] target_clones not applying to openmp functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78808 Steven Noonan changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #42417|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/82626] -msse and -mfpmath=sse Causes __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__ to be -1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82626 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Indeed, this really is a mingw bug. "and for other values of FLT_EVAL_METHOD, they are otherwise implementation-defined." Being implementation-defined doesn't mean they aren't defined at all.

[Bug other/78808] target_clones not applying to openmp functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78808 --- Comment #12 from Steven Noonan --- Created attachment 42418 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42418=edit nbody_CPU_AOS compile error testcase preprocessed source Compile error case, preprocessed source. Compile with: $

[Bug target/82626] -msse and -mfpmath=sse Causes __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__ to be -1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82626 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- I don't see any leeway in the C standard for an implementation to not define those types at all, but we can certainly make this change, if that's the right thing to do: ---

[Bug other/78808] target_clones not applying to openmp functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78808 Steven Noonan changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #40333|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug rtl-optimization/82628] [8 Regression] wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu in the 32-bit mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82628 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug libstdc++/82481] dangling reference in mutex:693

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82481 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.0 |7.3 --- Comment #10 from Jonathan

[Bug c++/82635] std::thread's join broken on FreeBSD with all GCCs >= 5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82635 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Hannes Hauswedell from comment #4) > The crash happens when calling .joinable(). If we skip the joinable check it > crashes on .join(). That's not very precise. Calling it where? From the

[Bug target/82626] -msse and -mfpmath=sse Causes __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__ to be -1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82626 --- Comment #6 from Keith Marshall --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__ 0 can't be correct in that case, "all operations and > constants evaluate in the range and precision of the type used." does not > hold,

[Bug libstdc++/82481] dangling reference in mutex:693

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82481 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Fri Oct 20 15:14:33 2017 New Revision: 253944 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253944=gcc=rev Log: PR libstdc++/82481 Suppress clang-tidy warnings Backport from mainline 2017-10-13

[Bug libstdc++/79433] __has_include() is true but #include gives #error when -std=old

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79433 --- Comment #27 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Fri Oct 20 15:14:29 2017 New Revision: 253943 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253943=gcc=rev Log: PR libstdc++/79433 no #error for including headers with wrong -std Backport from

[Bug tree-optimization/82627] [8 regression] r253809 breaks test cases gcc.dg/graphite/interchange-3.c -7.c, -9.c, and uns-interchange-9.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82627 --- Comment #4 from Bill Seurer --- I attached the dumps from before and after. Wow, they are radically different in size.

[Bug tree-optimization/82627] [8 regression] r253809 breaks test cases gcc.dg/graphite/interchange-3.c -7.c, -9.c, and uns-interchange-9.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82627 --- Comment #3 from Bill Seurer --- Created attachment 42416 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42416=edit Before revisvion

[Bug tree-optimization/82627] [8 regression] r253809 breaks test cases gcc.dg/graphite/interchange-3.c -7.c, -9.c, and uns-interchange-9.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82627 Bill Seurer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||seurer at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---

[Bug c++/82635] std::thread's join broken on FreeBSD with all GCCs >= 5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82635 --- Comment #4 from Hannes Hauswedell --- > the complete command line that triggers the bug; /usr/local/bin/g++7 -Wl,-rpath -Wl,/usr/local/lib/gcc7/ -std=c++11 -pthread test_thread.cpp (g++7 could be g++6 g++6 or g++8)

[Bug other/78808] target_clones not applying to openmp functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78808 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Can you please attach preprocessed sources for both issues (the error and the undefined external ref to *.omp_fn* function) + full g++ command line options?

[Bug ada/82637] Compiler crash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82637 --- Comment #1 from Victor Porton --- Possibly related bug: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82638

[Bug c++/82635] std::thread's join broken on FreeBSD with all GCCs >= 5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82635 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug gcov-profile/82614] GCOV crashes while parsing gcda file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82614 --- Comment #7 from Marco Castelluccio --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6) > (In reply to Marco Castelluccio from comment #5) > > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4) > > > (In reply to Marco Castelluccio from comment #3) > > >

[Bug ada/82638] New: Legal program rejected with a weird error message

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82638 Bug ID: 82638 Summary: Legal program rejected with a weird error message Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug middle-end/82617] Internal compiler error in expand_expr_real_1 when compiling the attached file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82617 --- Comment #3 from Ögmundur Petersson --- I fear that it doesn't add any new information but here is my full backtrace: test.f90:22:0: FUNCTION str_words(str,white) RESULT(items) Error: Local declaration from a different function

[Bug ada/82637] New: Compiler crash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82637 Bug ID: 82637 Summary: Compiler crash Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: ada Assignee:

[Bug c++/82635] std::thread's join broken on FreeBSD with all GCCs >= 5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82635 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- *** Bug 82634 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c++/82634] C++11 std::thread::join

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82634 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE --- Comment #2 from

[Bug target/82626] -msse and -mfpmath=sse Causes __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__ to be -1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82626 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__ 0 can't be correct in that case, "all operations and constants evaluate in the range and precision of the type used." does not hold, but "all operations and constants evaluate in the

[Bug sanitizer/82595] bootstrap fails in libsanitizer on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82595 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Still, it was clearly caused by the bogus --without-pic, as lsan_preinit.cc is guarded with a macro that was not enabled if PIC was defined.

[Bug sanitizer/82595] bootstrap fails in libsanitizer on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82595 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/82626] -msse and -mfpmath=sse Causes __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__ to be -1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82626 Keith Marshall changed: What|Removed |Added CC||keith.marshall at mailinator dot c

[Bug c/82636] powerpc: Unnecessary copy of __ieee128 parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82636 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ra Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/82636] New: powerpc: Unnecessary copy of __ieee128 parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82636 Bug ID: 82636 Summary: powerpc: Unnecessary copy of __ieee128 parameter Product: gcc Version: 7.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/49526] extra move instruction for smmul

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49526 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|rearnsha at

[Bug tree-optimization/82473] [8 Regression] ICE in vect_get_vec_def_for_stmt_copy, at tree-vect-stmts.c:1524

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82473 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug debug/82630] Bogus DW_AT_GNU_call_site_value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82630 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/82473] [8 Regression] ICE in vect_get_vec_def_for_stmt_copy, at tree-vect-stmts.c:1524

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82473 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri Oct 20 13:43:47 2017 New Revision: 253937 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253937=gcc=rev Log: 2017-10-20 Richard Biener PR

[Bug tree-optimization/82129] [8 Regression] ICE in compute_antic, at tree-ssa-pre.c:2447

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82129 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- So we oscillate in the expression set because we "randomly" take expressions when intersecting ANTIC_OUT. Both keeping all and canonicalizing to lowest expression ID fixes this. Testing patch.

  1   2   >