[Bug middle-end/82742] New: ICE on valid code at -O3: verify_flow_info failed

-pc-linux-gnu/8.0.0/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto --prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap Thread model: posix gcc version 8.0.0 20171026 (experimental) [trunk revision 254125] (GCC

[Bug c++/82734] -Wignored-qualifiers is maybe too strict when using decltype

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82734 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Why can't you use std::remove_cv here?

[Bug debug/59515] -Og doesn't generate out-of-line copies of inline functions like -O0 does

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59515 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Maybe -fkeep-inline-functions ?

[Bug libstdc++/81797] gcc 7.1.0 fails to build on macOS 10.13 (High Sierra):

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797 --- Comment #44 from Chris Johns --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #42) > I think something else is going on here, and not a race condition in the > makefile. I agree. I see the failure after a few files have been built. > > This

[Bug fortran/29600] [F03] MINLOC and MAXLOC take an optional KIND argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29600 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c++/82081] Tail call optimisation of noexcept function leads to exception allowed through

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82081 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|NEW Resolution|INVALID

[Bug tree-optimization/81028] GCC miscompiles placement new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81028 Alexander Cherepanov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ch3root at openwall dot com ---

[Bug c++/82081] Tail call optimisation of noexcept function leads to exception allowed through

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82081 --- Comment #5 from Paweł Dziepak --- Is it really undefined? n4700 states in 18.4/5: Whenever an exception is thrown and the search for a handler (18.3) encounters the outermost block of a function with a non-throwing exception specification,

[Bug c++/82081] Tail call optimisation of noexcept function leads to exception allowed through

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82081 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/82081] Tail call optimisation of noexcept function leads to exception allowed through

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82081 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/82741] Optimisations may cause noexcept specifier to be ignored

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82741 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/82081] Tail call optimisation of noexcept function leads to exception allowed through

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82081 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pdziepak at quarnos dot org --- Comment

[Bug c++/82741] New: Optimisations may cause noexcept specifier to be ignored

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82741 Bug ID: 82741 Summary: Optimisations may cause noexcept specifier to be ignored Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/82683] Combine: GCC generates bad code with -tune=thunderx2t99

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683 --- Comment #11 from Steve Ellcey --- I think I see where this is going wrong but I don't know what to do about it. In try_combine, line 3288 we have i2 and i3 of: (insn 18 16 19 3 (set (reg:DI 91) (ashift:DI (reg:DI 83 [ _26 ])

[Bug c++/82740] New: [concepts] requires clause evaluated early

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82740 Bug ID: 82740 Summary: [concepts] requires clause evaluated early Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug rtl-optimization/82683] Combine: GCC generates bad code with -tune=thunderx2t99

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683 --- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool --- reg-notes.def says /* The value in REG dies in this insn (i.e., it is not needed past this insn). If REG is set in this insn, the REG_DEAD note may, but need not, be omitted. */ REG_NOTE

[Bug libstdc++/82739] New: Sort is 30% slower compared to gcc44 on presorted array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82739 Bug ID: 82739 Summary: Sort is 30% slower compared to gcc44 on presorted array Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/82471] Reorder loop for unfavorable index ordering in DO CONCURRENT and FORALL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82471 --- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig --- Created attachment 42482 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42482=edit Here's a first attempt...

[Bug fortran/82709] f2008 complex%re and %im not yet implemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82709 --- Comment #2 from harper at msor dot vuw.ac.nz --- Apologies - I did not find bug 40196 when I was looking for possible duplicates of my bug 82709. On Tue, 24 Oct 2017, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote: > Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 23:51:55 +

[Bug rtl-optimization/82692] [8 Regression] Ordered comparisons used for unordered built-ins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82692 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #42479|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug tree-optimization/82707] ICE in verify_gimple_in_cfg at tree-cfg.c:5395

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82707 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/82707] ICE in verify_gimple_in_cfg at tree-cfg.c:5395

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82707 --- Comment #12 from Tom de Vries --- Author: vries Date: Thu Oct 26 20:09:24 2017 New Revision: 254120 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254120=gcc=rev Log: Fix unsharing of GIMPLE_OMP_{SINGLE,TARGET,TEAMS} in gimple_copy 2017-10-26 Tom

[Bug other/82738] New: [meta-bug] issues with the -Og optimization level

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82738 Bug ID: 82738 Summary: [meta-bug] issues with the -Og optimization level Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/82735] _mm256_zeroupper does not invalidate previously computed registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735 --- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse --- Actually, what CSE1 does might be fine, and it is LRA that should have noticed that the register it assigned was clobbered, so it should have spilled (or better rematerialized). Assuming the i386 backend does

[Bug target/82735] _mm256_zeroupper does not invalidate previously computed registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug preprocessor/58687] "#line __LINE__ ..." changes subsequent line numbers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58687 --- Comment #35 from Max TenEyck Woodbury --- True, none of the specifically listed maintainers have commented on this version of the patch. There are three people listed and a general reference to all C and C++ front end maintainers. It is

[Bug c/67224] UTF-8 support for identifier names in GCC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67224 spoa at eircom dot net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||spoa at eircom dot net ---

[Bug c++/82737] Compiler segfault on compilation of a certain file (full cause unknown) (file too large for upload, link provided)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82737 Matti Bryce changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-w64-mingw32 URL|

[Bug c++/82737] New: Compiler segfault on compilation of a certain file (full cause unknown) (file too large for upload, link provided)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82737 Bug ID: 82737 Summary: Compiler segfault on compilation of a certain file (full cause unknown) (file too large for upload, link provided) Product: gcc Version:

[Bug fortran/81758] [7/8 Regression] [OOP] Broken vtab

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758 --- Comment #21 from DIL --- Greatly appreciate!

[Bug fortran/81758] [7/8 Regression] [OOP] Broken vtab

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758 --- Comment #20 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com --- Hi Dmitry, I will persist with 81758 until I have a satisfactory testcase and then I promise that I will move to 80850. Cheers Paul On 26 October 2017 at 15:20, liakhdi at ornl

[Bug c++/82736] -Wl not wrapping all functions call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82736 --- Comment #4 from Federico Kircheis --- Thank you very much for your feedback. With "-static" or "-static-libstdc++" i got the expected (at least for me) result. I guess that I'll need to register to https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ to ask

[Bug other/82704] GCC fails to download prerequisites on busybox distro (unrecognized sha512sum --check)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82704 --- Comment #2 from Keno Fischer --- Well, the script has a separate code path for Darwin anyway, since Darwin's sha512sum is spelled `shasum -a 512`, but `shasum` also supports `-c` (as well as `--check`).

[Bug middle-end/78809] Inline strcmp with small constant strings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78809 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/82736] -Wl not wrapping all functions call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82736 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- This might also be due to how glibc defines the clock_gettime symbol (as a weak alias for its internal __clock_gettime), in which case it would still belong in https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ but for

[Bug c++/82736] -Wl not wrapping all functions call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82736 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/82735] _mm256_zeroupper does not invalidate previously computed registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735 --- Comment #1 from Marcin Ślusarz --- Heh, there are really stupid bugs in both files. Thankfully they don't change the outcome. Updated code: $ cat main.c #include #include void test(char *dest); int main() { char buf[64];

[Bug preprocessor/58687] "#line __LINE__ ..." changes subsequent line numbers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58687 --- Comment #34 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- None of the other preprocessor maintainers have commented on this bug in the past four years to disagree with my view of the natural identification of the current line for this __LINE__

[Bug c++/82736] -Wl not wrapping all functions call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82736 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- First -Wl, options just pass directly to the linker. That means these options are linker options and not gcc options. The linker which are most likely using is the gnu linker, please this to them. But

[Bug c/82723] Collisions with standard library not detected by linker

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82723 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- Again this is not a gcc issue. It is a linker issue. You are most likely using binutils for the linker. Second this has been this behavior ever since the elf format came about 20 years ago.

[Bug c/82723] Collisions with standard library not detected by linker

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82723 --- Comment #3 from Berck Nash --- I can see that someone might want to do this, but it certainly doesn't seem like it should be default behavior. I think it's a bit absurd to expect an end user to know the names of every function called by

[Bug c++/82736] New: -Wl not wrapping all functions call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82736 Bug ID: 82736 Summary: -Wl not wrapping all functions call Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug sanitizer/81148] UBSAN: two more false positives

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81148 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/82735] New: _mm256_zeroupper does not invalidate previously computed registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735 Bug ID: 82735 Summary: _mm256_zeroupper does not invalidate previously computed registers Product: gcc Version: 7.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/82396] [8 Regression] qsort comparator non-negative on sorted output: 4 in ready_sort_real in haifa scheduler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82396 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/82407] [8 Regression][meta-bug] qsort_chk fallout tracking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82407 Bug 82407 depends on bug 82396, which changed state. Bug 82396 Summary: [8 Regression] qsort comparator non-negative on sorted output: 4 in ready_sort_real in haifa scheduler https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82396 What

[Bug fortran/81758] [7/8 Regression] [OOP] Broken vtab

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758 --- Comment #19 from DIL --- Hi Paul, Great, thanks a lot! That was pretty quick. Upon a chance, as there is still a momentum :), could you please take a brief look at bug #80850 to see whether it may be related since you mentioned "allocation

[Bug target/82713] [8 Regression] ICE in ix86_builtin_vectorization_cost, at config/i386/i386.c:44475

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82713 --- Comment #4 from Andrey Guskov --- Option set: -with-system-zlib --with-demangler-in-ld --with-fpmath=sse --enable-shared --enable-host-shared --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-cloog-backend=isl --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,jit,lto

[Bug tree-optimization/81661] [7/8 Regression] ICE in gimplify_modify_expr, at gimplify.c:5638

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81661 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- One possibility is instead of using may_be_zero ? 0 : niter as niter for code-generation use (may_be_zero ? 0 : 1) * niter This avoids the gimplification issue. We assemble this as call

[Bug target/82713] [8 Regression] ICE in ix86_builtin_vectorization_cost, at config/i386/i386.c:44475

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82713 Andrey Guskov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andrey.y.guskov at intel dot com ---

[Bug rtl-optimization/82677] Many projects (linux, coreutils, GMP, gcrypt, openSSL, etc) are misusing asm(divq/divl) etc, potentially resulting in faulty/unintended optimisations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, nisse at lysator dot liu.se wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677 > > Niels Möller changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug rtl-optimization/82677] Many projects (linux, coreutils, GMP, gcrypt, openSSL, etc) are misusing asm(divq/divl) etc, potentially resulting in faulty/unintended optimisations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82677 Niels Möller changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nisse at lysator dot liu.se --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/81659] ICE in verify_dominators, at dominance.c:1184

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81659 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/82734] New: -Wignored-qualifiers is maybe too strict when using decltype

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82734 Bug ID: 82734 Summary: -Wignored-qualifiers is maybe too strict when using decltype Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/63466] sstream is very slow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63466 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/82327] [7 Regression] ICE in equal_mem_array_ref_p, at tree-ssa-scopedtables.c:429 (i686-linux-gnu)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82327 Matthias Klose changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug debug/82425] [8 regression] gcc.dg/guality/inline-params-2.c fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82425 Andrey Guskov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenther at suse dot de --- Comment #1

[Bug rtl-optimization/82729] adjacent small objects can be initialized with a single store (but aren't for char a[] = "a")

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82729 --- Comment #5 from Peter Cordes --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > As for this exact ones, I'm now working on GIMPLE store merging > improvements, but that of course won't handle this case. > For RTL I had code to handle this at

[Bug fortran/81758] [7/8 Regression] [OOP] Broken vtab

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758 --- Comment #18 from Paul Thomas --- Created attachment 42480 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42480=edit A patch that fixes the problem Following your tip, Dimtry, this does the job and regtests OK. Will fix up a testcase

[Bug tree-optimization/82732] malloc+zeroing other than memset not optimized to calloc, so asm output is malloc+memset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82732 --- Comment #3 from Peter Cordes --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #2) > If you use size_t consistently (for size and i), then the resulting code is > a call to calloc. Ah interesting. With a compile-time constant size and -O3 we get

[Bug libstdc++/65018] Use secure_getenv when available

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65018 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||easyhack

[Bug rtl-optimization/82729] adjacent small objects can be initialized with a single store (but aren't for char a[] = "a")

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82729 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Peter Cordes from comment #2) > Are bug reports like this useful at all? It seems that a good fraction of > the missed-optimization bugs I file are things that gcc doesn't really have > the

[Bug rtl-optimization/82729] adjacent small objects can be initialized with a single store (but aren't for char a[] = "a")

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82729 --- Comment #3 from Peter Cordes --- Oh also, why is MSP430 using 3 byte-stores instead of a mov.w + mov.b for storing ab[]? (on the godbolt link in the initial report) # msp430-gcc 6.2.1.16) 6.2.1 20161212 MOV.W #25185, 6(R1)

[Bug rtl-optimization/82692] [8 Regression] Ordered comparisons used for unordered built-ins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82692 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug target/82703] [7/8 Regression] Wrong addition of std::array components with -O2 -ftree-loop-vectorize -ftree-slp-vectorize (works fine with -O2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82703 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug libstdc++/81797] gcc 7.1.0 fails to build on macOS 10.13 (High Sierra):

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797 --- Comment #43 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Misty De Meo from comment #41) > I requested a suggestion from Apple as to how to fix this, and was directed > to the developer technical support page: >

[Bug libstdc++/81797] gcc 7.1.0 fails to build on macOS 10.13 (High Sierra):

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797 --- Comment #42 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Campbell from comment #40) > Yes, the problem is known to be specific to APFS, due to the finer > resolution of timestamps. Is it? Why should timestamp resolution cause ENOENT errors? I'm

[Bug target/82733] [8 regression] FAIL: math/test-double-y0 (with qNaN input)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82733 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/82692] [8 Regression] Ordered comparisons used for unordered built-ins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82692 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/82729] adjacent small objects can be initialized with a single store (but aren't for char a[] = "a")

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82729 --- Comment #2 from Peter Cordes --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > The issue is we have no merging of stores at the RTL level and the GIMPLE > level doesn't know whether the variables will end up allocated next to each > other.

[Bug target/82733] [8 regression] FAIL: math/test-double-y0 (with qNaN input)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82733 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- This may be caused by r253986.

[Bug target/82725] [8 Regression] [i386] internal compiler error: in change_address_1, at emit-rtl.c:2162

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82725 --- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1) > Looks it's related just to i386 target. Can't reproduce with > x86_64-linux-gnu and -m32. I can trigger the failure with cc1plus on x86_64-linux-gnu, without -m32:

[Bug target/82733] [8 regression] FAIL: math/test-double-y0 (with qNaN input)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82733 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/82732] malloc+zeroing other than memset not optimized to calloc, so asm output is malloc+memset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82732 --- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse --- If you use size_t consistently (for size and i), then the resulting code is a call to calloc.

[Bug rtl-optimization/82488] UBSAN in gcc/expr.c:4098:17: runtime error: signed integer overflow: 0 - -9223372036854775808 cannot be represented in type 'long int'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82488 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/82732] malloc+zeroing other than memset not optimized to calloc, so asm output is malloc+memset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82732 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --- We do recognize the memset early enough. What we fail to recognize is that the size argument to malloc is the same as the length of the memset: _1 = (long unsigned int) size_8(D); _2 = _1 * 4; p_11 =

[Bug c/82733] New: [8 regression] FAIL: math/test-double-y0 (with qNaN input)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82733 Bug ID: 82733 Summary: [8 regression] FAIL: math/test-double-y0 (with qNaN input) Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/82717] [RISCV] Default value of the -mabi option doesn't match documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82717 --- Comment #5 from Alex Bradbury --- (In reply to palmer from comment #4) > """ > @item -mabi=@var{ABI-string} > @opindex mabi > Specify integer and floating-point calling convention. @var{ABI-string} > contains two parts: the size of integer

[Bug tree-optimization/82732] New: malloc+zeroing other than memset not optimized to calloc, so asm output is malloc+memset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82732 Bug ID: 82732 Summary: malloc+zeroing other than memset not optimized to calloc, so asm output is malloc+memset Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libffi/28036] libffi executable stack (missing .note.GNU-stack on .o files)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28036 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug libffi/28036] libffi executable stack (missing .note.GNU-stack on .o files)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28036 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch Status|NEW

[Bug other/79872] document placeholder %K in gcc-internal-format

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79872 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/82703] [7/8 Regression] Wrong addition of std::array components with -O2 -ftree-loop-vectorize -ftree-slp-vectorize (works fine with -O2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82703 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Reduced testcase in C, -O2 -fno-tree-sra -ftree-vectorize aborts, -O2, or -O2 -ftree-vectorize, or -O2 -fno-tree-sra doesn't. /* PR target/82703 */ /* { dg-do run } */ /* { dg-options "-O2 -fno-tree-sra

[Bug target/82731] New: _mm256_set_epi8(array[offset[0]], array[offset[1]], ...) byte gather makes slow code, trying to zero-extend all the uint16_t offsets first and spilling them.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82731 Bug ID: 82731 Summary: _mm256_set_epi8(array[offset[0]], array[offset[1]], ...) byte gather makes slow code, trying to zero-extend all the uint16_t offsets first and

[Bug other/69561] MULTILIB_EXCLUSIONS is not documented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69561 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/82730] New: extra store/reload of an XMM for every byte extracted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82730 Bug ID: 82730 Summary: extra store/reload of an XMM for every byte extracted Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization, ssemmx

[Bug target/82703] [7/8 Regression] Wrong addition of std::array components with -O2 -ftree-loop-vectorize -ftree-slp-vectorize (works fine with -O2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82703 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug tree-optimization/82707] ICE in verify_gimple_in_cfg at tree-cfg.c:5395

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82707 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- Comment on attachment 42477 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42477 More minimal patch Ok, thanks. Not really happy this C++ification has been introduced, but now we have to live with

[Bug tree-optimization/82707] ICE in verify_gimple_in_cfg at tree-cfg.c:5395

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82707 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #42476|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug tree-optimization/82707] ICE in verify_gimple_in_cfg at tree-cfg.c:5395

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82707 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Comment on attachment 42476 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42476 Updated tentative patch Both TEAMS and SINGLE don't have any inlines that actually need gomp_teams or gomp_single, they

[Bug tree-optimization/82707] ICE in verify_gimple_in_cfg at tree-cfg.c:5395

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82707 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #42475|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c++/82561] [8 regression] crash on internal compiler error: in cp_tree_equal, at cp/tree.c:3778

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82561 Sylvestre Ledru changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/82707] ICE in verify_gimple_in_cfg at tree-cfg.c:5395

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82707 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Ah, in that case it is hard to reproduce with single/teams, because usually those don't appear in try/finally cleanup actions. That said, gimple_copy is used in many other spots. But, if you want, just

[Bug tree-optimization/82707] ICE in verify_gimple_in_cfg at tree-cfg.c:5395

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82707 --- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > If the problem is missing unsharing, Minimal example (with c compiler and -fexceptions): ... extern void bar (void); void foo (void) { int e[8]; #pragma acc

[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 #24 from Christophe Lyon --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #21) > [...] > but I am not sure that waitpid is available on all systems; > this is more likely to break things than fix things. > I tried simpler things (just

[Bug tree-optimization/82726] ICE in verify_ssa during GIMPLE pass: pcom

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82726 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/82729] adjacent small objects can be initialized with a single store (but aren't for char a[] = "a")

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82729 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/82725] [8 Regression] [i386] internal compiler error: in change_address_1, at emit-rtl.c:2162

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82725 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||i?86-*-* Target Milestone|---

[Bug c/82723] Collisions with standard library not detected by linker

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82723 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/82722] [7 Regression] ICE in finish_member_declaration, at cp/semantics.c:2984

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82722 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.3

  1   2   >