[Bug target/81842] -fcf-protection -mcet is incompatible with makecontext family functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81842 --- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu --- Maybe we should just simply poison to issue an error if SHSTK is enabled.

[Bug target/81842] -fcf-protection -mcet is incompatible with makecontext family functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81842 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #42889|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug tree-optimization/83435] New: [8 Regression] ICE in set_value_range, at tree-vrp.c:211

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83435 Bug ID: 83435 Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in set_value_range, at tree-vrp.c:211 Product: gcc Version: 7.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-on-valid-code

[Bug target/80210] ICE in in extract_insn, at recog.c:2311 on ppc64 for with __builtin_pow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80210 --- Comment #21 from Peter Bergner --- Author: bergner Date: Fri Dec 15 03:41:16 2017 New Revision: 255671 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255671=gcc=rev Log: gcc/ Backport from mainline 2017-10-02 Peter Bergner

[Bug gcov-profile/83434] New: [GCOV] A label after a non-executed if statement is wrongly marked as not executed in gcov

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83434 Bug ID: 83434 Summary: [GCOV] A label after a non-executed if statement is wrongly marked as not executed in gcov Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #77 from Alexandre Oliva --- Created attachment 42891 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42891=edit fix libiberty/unix-pex bootstrap compare (stage3 configure) ... and if you find that bootstrap-debug compare fails

[Bug lto/83201] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 505.mcf_f produces incorrect output when built with -flto and FDO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201 --- Comment #5 from Pat Haugen --- Current FSF 6 branch works fine, so I have some bisect points. Will comment further as I find out.

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #76 from Alexandre Oliva --- Created attachment 42890 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42890=edit move markers after labels while building the cfg This is a follow up to comment 61, that adjusts the IR to reject

[Bug middle-end/83423] default_static_chain is sorry for non-nested functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83423 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/83433] Should -Wstrict-overflow=2 produce a diagnostic for abs(INT_MIN)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83433 --- Comment #3 from Shafik Yaghmour --- I still think it is awkwardly worded but your second point is valid about it only warning on comparisons. Please, feel free to close.

[Bug c/83433] Should -Wstrict-overflow=2 produce a diagnostic for abs(INT_MIN)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83433 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Specifically, it says "warn about other cases where a comparison is simplified to a constant" Calling abs(INT_MIN) is not a comparison.

[Bug c/83433] Should -Wstrict-overflow=2 produce a diagnostic for abs(INT_MIN)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83433 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- The docs don't indicate that to me. The option warns about checking if the result of abs(x) is non-negative, which is true except for the undefined case of abs(INT_MIN), it doesn't warn about the call to

[Bug c/83433] New: Should -Wstrict-overflow=2 produce a diagnostic for abs(INT_MIN)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83433 Bug ID: 83433 Summary: Should -Wstrict-overflow=2 produce a diagnostic for abs(INT_MIN) Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/81842] -fcf-protection -mcet is incompatible with makecontext family functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81842 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #42836|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug tree-optimization/81635] [8 Regression] nvptx SLP test cases regressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81635 --- Comment #11 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10) > So, for #c3 testcase on x86_64-linux, I can confirm: > -bash-4.3$ rm -f pr81635.c.*; /opt/notnfs/gcc-bisect/obj/gcc/cc1.249895 > -quiet

[Bug testsuite/83432] [8 regression] moved test case 26_numerics/complex/inserters_extractors/char/dr2714.cc:75 fails starting with 255630

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83432 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/83431] -Wformat-truncation may incorrectly report truncation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83431 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization --- Comment #2 from

[Bug c++/83431] -Wformat-truncation may incorrectly report truncation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83431 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug libstdc++/83279] std::experimental::filesystem::copy_file can't copy larger files than 2.0GiB

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83279 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.5 --- Comment #11 from Jonathan

[Bug libstdc++/83279] std::experimental::filesystem::copy_file can't copy larger files than 2.0GiB

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83279 --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Dec 14 21:49:03 2017 New Revision: 255666 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255666=gcc=rev Log: PR libstdc++/83279 handle sendfile not copying entire file PR

[Bug c++/83430] buffer overflow diagnostics for snprintf is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83430 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/83430] buffer overflow diagnostics for snprintf is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83430 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug fortran/83344] Use of uninitialized memory with ASSOCIATE and strings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83344 --- Comment #9 from Janne Blomqvist --- With the patch in #2 (which in this case is equivalent to your patch in #8) I get on my charlen->size_t branch: ❯ gfortran -O0 -Wall -c a22.f90 a22.f90:20:0: associate(w4 => trim(s)) Warning: ‘.w4’

[Bug libstdc++/83279] std::experimental::filesystem::copy_file can't copy larger files than 2.0GiB

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83279 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- "sendfile() will transfer at most 0x7000 (2,147,479,552) bytes, returning the number of bytes actually transferred. (This is true on both 32-bit and 64-bit systems.)" Oops.

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78809 --- Comment #22 from Qing Zhao --- https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg00962.html 2nd patch

[Bug libstdc++/68519] condition_variable::wait_for does not work properly with float duration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68519 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/68519] condition_variable::wait_for does not work properly with float duration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68519 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Dec 14 20:41:52 2017 New Revision: 255665 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255665=gcc=rev Log: PR libstdc++/68519 use native duration to avoid rounding errors PR

[Bug libstdc++/83279] std::experimental::filesystem::copy_file can't copy larger files than 2.0GiB

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83279 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug testsuite/83432] [8 regression] moved test case 26_numerics/complex/inserters_extractors/char/dr2714.cc:75 fails starting with 255630

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83432 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug testsuite/83432] New: [8 regression] moved test case 26_numerics/complex/inserters_extractors/char/dr2714.cc:75 fails starting with 255630

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83432 Bug ID: 83432 Summary: [8 regression] moved test case 26_numerics/complex/inserters_extractors/char/dr2714.c c:75 fails starting with 255630 Product: gcc

[Bug middle-end/79538] missing -Wformat-overflow with %s and non-member array arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79538 Qing Zhao changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/59521] __builtin_expect not effective in switch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59521 Daniel Fruzynski changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/80520] [7/8 Regression] Performance regression from missing if-conversion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80520 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #8

[Bug tree-optimization/83410] [8 regression] libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-4.c etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83410 --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law --- So to record my current thoughts. There's two competing needs here. We sometimes want to thread as the simplifications can enable vectorization. Other times we do not want to thread because threading

[Bug middle-end/61118] [6/7/8 Regression] Indirect call generated for pthread_cleanup_push with constant cleanup function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118 Yury Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #75 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- As of GCC trunk r255655 I no longer see the GCC ICE building glibc for m68k (instead there's a non-ICE glibc build problem as noted in

[Bug c++/83431] New: -Wformat-truncation may incorrectly report truncation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83431 Bug ID: 83431 Summary: -Wformat-truncation may incorrectly report truncation Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug middle-end/61118] [6/7/8 Regression] Indirect call generated for pthread_cleanup_push with constant cleanup function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118 --- Comment #16 from Joseph S. Myers --- I think the -Wclobbered warning probably needs to be reimplemented on GIMPLE, in a way that actually looks at whether it's possible for a variable to be set after the returns-twice call and before the

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #74 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #70) > ktkatchov, I'll submit the patch as soon as it completes testing, which > should be Real Soon Now (TM) :-) If you got the cycles to give it a

[Bug target/83402] PPC64 implementation of ./rs6000/emmintrin.h gives out of range for _mm_slli_epi32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83402 --- Comment #2 from Paul Clarke --- I'd like to take a stab at fixing this.

[Bug c++/83430] New: buffer overflow diagnostics for snprintf is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83430 Bug ID: 83430 Summary: buffer overflow diagnostics for snprintf is broken Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #73 from Andreas Schwab --- I was using --without-build-config.

[Bug target/80210] ICE in in extract_insn, at recog.c:2311 on ppc64 for with __builtin_pow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80210 --- Comment #20 from Peter Bergner --- Author: bergner Date: Thu Dec 14 17:43:32 2017 New Revision: 255655 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255655=gcc=rev Log: gcc/ Backport from mainline 2017-10-02 Peter Bergner

[Bug middle-end/79538] missing -Wformat-overflow with %s and non-member array arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79538 --- Comment #4 from Qing Zhao --- fixed in https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision=255654

[Bug libstdc++/56257] std::vector allows access to the elements of _Vector_base

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56257 Ville Voutilainen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug libstdc++/83427] [7/8 Regression] [C++17] weak result types and adaptable functions don't support noexcept functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83427 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #72 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #71) > Bootstrap on ia64 with #c61 ended up with comparison failures. > > gcc/cp/name-lookup.o differs > gcc/cp/parser.o differs > gcc/bb-reorder.o differs >

[Bug libstdc++/83427] [7/8 Regression] [C++17] weak result types and adaptable functions don't support noexcept functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83427 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Dec 14 17:29:22 2017 New Revision: 255652 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255652=gcc=rev Log: PR libstdc++/83427 detect weak result type from noexcept functions PR

[Bug tree-optimization/83312] [8 regression] bogus -Warray-bounds warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83312 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/56456] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Warray-bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456 Bug 56456 depends on bug 83312, which changed state. Bug 83312 Summary: [8 regression] bogus -Warray-bounds warning https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83312 What|Removed |Added

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #71 from Andreas Schwab --- Bootstrap on ia64 with #c61 ended up with comparison failures. gcc/cp/name-lookup.o differs gcc/cp/parser.o differs gcc/bb-reorder.o differs gcc/build/genrecog.o differs gcc/gcov.o

[Bug libstdc++/83427] [7/8 Regression] [C++17] weak result types and adaptable functions don't support noexcept functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83427 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Dec 14 17:18:22 2017 New Revision: 255651 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255651=gcc=rev Log: PR libstdc++/83427 detect weak result type from noexcept functions PR

[Bug tree-optimization/83312] [8 regression] bogus -Warray-bounds warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83312 --- Comment #9 from David Malcolm --- Author: dmalcolm Date: Thu Dec 14 17:15:39 2017 New Revision: 255649 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255649=gcc=rev Log: vrp_prop: Use dom_walker for -Warray-bounds (PR tree-optimization/83312)

[Bug tree-optimization/83269] [8 Regression] Wrong constant folding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83269 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #70 from Alexandre Oliva --- ktkatchov, I'll submit the patch as soon as it completes testing, which should be Real Soon Now (TM) :-) If you got the cycles to give it a spin, by all means let us know how it goes! Thanks,

[Bug debug/83422] [8 Regression] ICE: in final_scan_insn, at final.c:2429 after "variable tracking size limit exceeded with -fvar-tracking-assignments, retrying without"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83422 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Comment on attachment 42887 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42887 candidate patch Preapproved for trunk.

[Bug tree-optimization/83269] [8 Regression] Wrong constant folding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83269 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- With -sanitize=signed-integer-overflow, we get in *.original: volatile unsigned char a = 1; long long int b = 2147483648; int c = (int) a * -2147483647 - (int) -b; instead of what we get without it:

[Bug debug/83422] [8 Regression] ICE: in final_scan_insn, at final.c:2429 after "variable tracking size limit exceeded with -fvar-tracking-assignments, retrying without"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83422 --- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva --- Created attachment 42887 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42887=edit candidate patch Here's what I'm testing.

[Bug tree-optimization/83269] [8 Regression] Wrong constant folding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83269 --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou --- How can a patch written in 2014 be responsible for a bug in GCC 4.4 exactly?

[Bug tree-optimization/83412] GCC line directive suppresses warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83412 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- I see. I (obviously) didn't know that. It seems like something worth documenting.

[Bug tree-optimization/83269] [8 Regression] Wrong constant folding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83269 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug tree-optimization/83253] -ftree-slsr causes performance regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253 --- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt --- By contrast, on powerpc64le, we see: - mult_by_coeff_cost (3, E_SImode, true) returns a cost of 8 - mult_by_coeff_cost (4, E_SImode, true) returns a cost of 4 These are the sort of costs one would

[Bug tree-optimization/83253] -ftree-slsr causes performance regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253 --- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt --- OK, for the i386 case, this simply comes down to the following. - mult_by_coeff_cost (3, E_SImode, true) returns a cost of 4 - mult_by_coeff_cost (4, E_SImode, true) returns a cost of 8 Garbage in,

[Bug c++/83429] New: Incorrect line number reported by -Wformat-truncation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83429 Bug ID: 83429 Summary: Incorrect line number reported by -Wformat-truncation Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug libstdc++/68519] condition_variable::wait_for does not work properly with float duration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68519 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- The problem is that duration doesn't have sufficient precision to represent now+1s as a float (the value is the same as now) #include constexpr std::chrono::seconds now(1513266095); constexpr auto then =

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #68 from Jakub Jelinek --- Can you try the #c63 patch? Perhaps the arm backend is yet another thing that doesn't really like debug insns outside of basic blocks...

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #67 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Thanks for working on this! As of r255632 I'm still getting: Error: unaligned opcodes detected in executable segment on arm targets when building gdb. A reduced testcase is:

[Bug rtl-optimization/83422] [8 Regression] ICE: in final_scan_insn, at final.c:2429 after "variable tracking size limit exceeded with -fvar-tracking-assignments, retrying without"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83422 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug lto/81406] [6/7 Regression] ICE in check_die, at dwarf2out.c:6185

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81406 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] ICE in |[6/7 Regression] ICE in

[Bug lto/81406] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE in check_die, at dwarf2out.c:6185

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81406 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Dec 14 15:26:00 2017 New Revision: 255643 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255643=gcc=rev Log: PR lto/81406 * gcc.dg/lto/pr81406_0.c: New test. Added:

[Bug lto/81406] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE in check_die, at dwarf2out.c:6185

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81406 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 42886 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42886=edit gcc8-pr81406.patch Fixed with r251220. I'll add this testcase to the testsuite (verified it FAILs with r251218, and

[Bug target/81616] Update -mtune=generic for the current Intel and AMD processors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616 --- Comment #39 from Sebastian Peryt --- I have tested it on SKX with SPEC2006INT and SPEC2017INT and don't see any regressions.

[Bug tree-optimization/77291] False positive for -Warray-bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77291 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2016-08-19 00:00:00 |2017-12-14 --- Comment #2 from Richard

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #66 from Alexandre Oliva --- Jakub, *nod*, that's among the "changes added to support that". Ulrich, thanks for the report. r255639 compiles your testcase successfully on x86_64-linux-gnu-x-spu-elf with -O -g, so I guess the

[Bug tree-optimization/66974] -Warray-bounds false positive with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66974 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/66974] -Warray-bounds false positive with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66974 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Dec 14 15:18:16 2017 New Revision: 255642 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255642=gcc=rev Log: 2017-12-14 Richard Biener PR

[Bug tree-optimization/56210] invalid -Warray-bounds warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56210 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/81740] [6/7/8 Regression] wrong code at -O3 in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81740 --- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > Testcase modified for the testsuite: > > int a[8][10] = { [2][5] = 4 }, c; > > int > main () > { > short b; > int i, d; > for (b = 4; b >= 0;

[Bug tree-optimization/65258] Wrong array bounds warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65258 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Dec 14 15:08:09 2017 New Revision: 255641 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255641=gcc=rev Log: 2017-12-14 Richard Biener PR

[Bug tree-optimization/65258] Wrong array bounds warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65258 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #65 from Andreas Schwab --- Author: schwab Date: Thu Dec 14 15:06:25 2017 New Revision: 255640 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255640=gcc=rev Log: PR bootstrap/83396 * reload1.c (emit_input_reload_insns): Skip

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #64 from Ulrich Weigand --- I'm seeing the same error on spu-elf when building newlib with GCC revision 255614. In case this isn't fixed by more recent changes already, here's a reduced test case (build with -O -g): const char *

[Bug sanitizer/83388] reference statement index not found error with -fsanitize=null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388 > > --- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka --- > Possibly, but for now I would be fine

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #63 from Jakub Jelinek --- Comment on attachment 42885 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42885 expand labels before markers If you do this, then we should also revert the var-tracking.c etc. changes to look for

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #62 from Alexandre Oliva --- Author: aoliva Date: Thu Dec 14 15:02:58 2017 New Revision: 255638 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255638=gcc=rev Log: [SFN] next/prev_nonnote_insn_bb are no more, even for ports The patch that

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #62 from Alexandre Oliva --- Author: aoliva Date: Thu Dec 14 15:02:58 2017 New Revision: 255638 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255638=gcc=rev Log: [SFN] next/prev_nonnote_insn_bb are no more, even for ports The patch that

[Bug sanitizer/83388] reference statement index not found error with -fsanitize=null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388 --- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka --- Possibly, but for now I would be fine with just removing the references and solving it once we have real pass that attach something to them (perhaps next stage1)

[Bug tree-optimization/80520] [7/8 Regression] Performance regression from missing if-conversion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80520 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #61 from Alexandre Oliva --- Created attachment 42885 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42885=edit expand labels before markers This patch fixes both ia64 problems. Basically, the ebb scheduler gets thoroughly

[Bug tree-optimization/67842] Incorrect check in sese.h:bb_in_region

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67842 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Dec 14 14:53:40 2017 New Revision: 255636 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255636=gcc=rev Log: 2017-12-14 Richard Biener PR

[Bug tree-optimization/67842] Incorrect check in sese.h:bb_in_region

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67842 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/83269] [8 Regression] Wrong constant folding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83269 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/82973] [8 regression] ICE in output_constant_pool_2, at varasm.c:3896 on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82973 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Component|fortran |rtl-optimization

[Bug middle-end/61118] [6/7/8 Regression] Indirect call generated for pthread_cleanup_push with constant cleanup function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.5

[Bug tree-optimization/83253] -ftree-slsr causes performance regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253 --- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt --- I see that I was looking at the wrong leg here. This is a CAND_ADD, not a CAND_MULT, and I'm getting strange cost results on that path. The proposed change is still appropriate in my view, but not relevant

[Bug c++/83020] [7 Regression] ('17) Class template constructor call skipped with no error when substitution fails in default argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83020 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.3

[Bug target/82961] [6/7 Regression] ICE in dwarf2out.c: deferred_asm_name != NULL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82961 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.5

[Bug target/82989] [7/8 regression ] Inexplicable use of NEON for 64-bit math

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82989 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.3

[Bug target/83330] [7/8 Regression] generating unaligned store to stack for SSE register with -mno-push-args

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83330 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.3

  1   2   3   >