[Bug middle-end/84034] [6/7/8 Regression] incomplete warning message with dos line endings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84034 --- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger --- Author: edlinger Date: Sat Jan 27 06:44:25 2018 New Revision: 257120 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257120=gcc=rev Log: 2018-01-27 Bernd Edlinger PR

[Bug middle-end/84040] [8 regression] compilation time of gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-blockid.c is 50x slower

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84040 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/84040] [8 regression] compilation time of gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-blockid.c is 50x slower

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84040 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Sat Jan 27 06:28:15 2018 New Revision: 257119 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257119=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/84040 * sched-deps.c (sched_macro_fuse_insns): Return

[Bug fortran/82994] ICE in gfc_match_deallocate, at fortran/match.c:4478

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82994 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 CC|

[Bug fortran/68746] FAIL: gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90 -O0 execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746 --- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2018-01-26 8:29 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote: > By the xfail? Can the PR be closed? I'll have to investigate...

[Bug fortran/68746] FAIL: gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90 -O0 execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746 --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > I don't have a recent gcc-6 set of test results but the bug is fixed in > gcc-7 and gcc-8. By the xfail? Can the PR be closed?

[Bug libstdc++/58931] condition_variable::wait_until overflowed by large time_point

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58931 --- Comment #5 from Aaron Graham --- Created attachment 43261 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43261=edit Patch to check for overflow

[Bug fortran/68746] FAIL: gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90 -O0 execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746 --- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- I don't have a recent gcc-6 set of test results but the bug is fixed in gcc-7 and gcc-8.

[Bug c++/83342] extern marked variable template with later definition emits error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83342 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/68746] FAIL: gfortran.dg/read_dir.f90 -O0 execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68746 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #6 from

[Bug fortran/66833] ICE on assumed-rank character actual argument to intrinsic functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66833 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug libstdc++/81122] [DR 2381] parsing f stopped after '0' when reading std::hexfloat >> f;

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81122 --- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11) > (In reply to Ben Woodard from comment #10) > > Also note: > > https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/742775 > > > > My reading of: >

[Bug libstdc++/81122] [DR 2381] parsing f stopped after '0' when reading std::hexfloat >> f;

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81122 --- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Ben Woodard from comment #10) > Also note: https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/742775 > > My reading of: > https://wg21.link/lwg2381 > > is that if the first part of

[Bug fortran/56691] [OOP] Allocatable array: wrong offset when passing to CLASS dummy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56691 --- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres --- The test in comment 3 has likely been fixed by revision r222361 (pr60322).

[Bug c++/83835] [7/8 Regression] constexpr constructor rejected in c++17 mode (regression WRT c++14)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83835 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/56691] [OOP] Allocatable array: wrong offset when passing to CLASS dummy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56691 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vladimir.fuka at gmail dot com

[Bug fortran/84074] Incorrect indexing of array when actual argument is an array expression and dummy is polymorphic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84074 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/84039] x86 retpolines and CFI

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84039 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/84048] [8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/tls/run-ld.c -O0 -pie -fPIE execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84048 John David Anglin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug testsuite/83881] FAIL: c-c++-common/Wrestrict.c -std=gnu++98 (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83881 John David Anglin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/60322] [OOP] Incorrect bounds on polymorphic dummy array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60322 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added CC||frank.otto at pci dot

[Bug fortran/58043] [OOP] Incorrect behaviour of polymorphic array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58043 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/56010] Powerpc, -mcpu=native and -mtune=native use the wrong name for target 7450

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56010 --- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #9) > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8) > >> This kernel AT_PLATFORM name should strip the '+' off: > >> .platform = "power7+", -> "power7" > >

[Bug c++/83870] template parameter pack followed by another template parameter does not error when following parameter can not be deduced

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83870 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/84074] Incorrect indexing of array when actual argument is an array expression and dummy is polymorphic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84074 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug fortran/56765] [OOP] compilation errors/ICE with polymorphic array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56765 --- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > On my environment, all tests compile now without an ICE. Confirmed.

[Bug c++/83873] adjacent digit separators are accepted in the exponent-part of floating-point literals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83873 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/83633] gfortran internal compiler error for explicit-shape array with non-constant bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83633 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 CC|

[Bug fortran/84074] New: Incorrect indexing of array when actual argument is an array expression and dummy is polymorphic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84074 Bug ID: 84074 Summary: Incorrect indexing of array when actual argument is an array expression and dummy is polymorphic Product: gcc Version: 7.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/83936] [feature request] Allow constexpr char* as target argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83936 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/84055] warning: ignoring attributes on template argument ‘cl_uint {aka unsigned int}’ [-Wignored-attributes]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84055 --- Comment #6 from Kip Warner --- Hey Martin. Yes, you are right. I see it now in cl_platform.h.

[Bug fortran/84073] In -fc-prototypes fixed (nonzero) length strings are mapped to plain char in prototype.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84073 --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres --- See also https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/Further-Interoperability-of-Fortran-with-C.html#Further-Interoperability-of-Fortran-with-C > Using assumed-shape, assumed-rank and deferred-shape

[Bug middle-end/84071] [7/8 regression] nonzero_bits1 of subreg incorrect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84071 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I think this is related to PR 81443. Can you see if the 7.3 release has it fixed?

[Bug fortran/84073] In -fc-prototypes fixed (nonzero) length strings are mapped to plain char in prototype.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84073 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug middle-end/84071] [7/8 regression] nonzero_bits1 of subreg incorrect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84071 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Target|

[Bug target/83712] [6/7/8 Regression] "Unable to find a register to spill" when compiling for thumb1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83712 Vladimir Makarov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c/83955] false positive implicit-fallthrough warning on switch enum

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83955 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug debug/83758] ICE building gccgo on powerpc64le --with-cpu=power8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83758 --- Comment #26 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org --- A little bit more info: It appears the parameter asmhdr in this function is at the center of this: func (tools gccgoToolchain) gc(b *Builder, a *Action, archive string, importcfg []byte,

[Bug c++/84027] new-expression does not accept an attribute-specifier-seq

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84027 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/84030] Name lookup in presence of namespace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84030 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/84055] warning: ignoring attributes on template argument ‘cl_uint {aka unsigned int}’ [-Wignored-attributes]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84055 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- Here's what I see in attachment #43249: $ cat -n minimal.ii | grep -E -e 'typedef *[^ ]+ *cl_uint' -e uint32_t | grep typedef 66 typedef unsigned int __uint32_t; 186 typedef __uint32_t uint32_t;

[Bug target/83946] [7/8 Regression] Safe Indirect Jumps broken on AIX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83946 --- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool --- Author: segher Date: Fri Jan 26 21:31:37 2018 New Revision: 257110 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257110=gcc=rev Log: rs6000: Fix safe-indirect-jump-[18].c Thist patch merges the

[Bug middle-end/84034] [6/7/8 Regression] incomplete warning message with dos line endings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84034 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/60336] empty struct value is passed differently in C and C++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60336 --- Comment #52 from H.J. Lu --- *** Bug 69846 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug target/69846] empty struct value fails to pass properly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69846 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/69846] empty struct value fails to pass properly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69846 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/84036] [8 Regression] ICE on valid code in C++14, variadic lambda capture in a template function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84036 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/83956] [8 regression] error: use of deleted function ‘{anonymous}::a::~a()’

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83956 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/83956] [8 regression] error: use of deleted function ‘{anonymous}::a::~a()’

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83956 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Fri Jan 26 20:47:32 2018 New Revision: 257107 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257107=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/83956 - wrong dtor error with anonymous union * method.c

[Bug target/55258] SSE register isn't used for 16byte copy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55258 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/83530] [8 Regression] ICE in reset_sched_cycles_in_current_ebb, at sel-sched.c:7150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83530 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/84073] New: In -fc-prototypes fixed (nonzero) length strings are mapped to plain char in prototype.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84073 Bug ID: 84073 Summary: In -fc-prototypes fixed (nonzero) length strings are mapped to plain char in prototype. Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/84055] warning: ignoring attributes on template argument ‘cl_uint {aka unsigned int}’ [-Wignored-attributes]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84055 --- Comment #4 from Kip Warner --- Thanks Martin. I'm curious where the __int32 type was even coming from. cl_platform.h has the following typedef, among others that use it... typedef unsigned __int32cl_uint; ...but no where can I

[Bug target/81763] Issues with BMI on 32bit x86 apps on GCC 7.1+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763 --- Comment #48 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Mike Lothian from comment #47) > With the patch you've committed to gcc master, applied on top of GCC 7.3 I'm > now seeing the following error building Clang: I don't think this is related to

[Bug target/84072] New: [meta-bug] -mindirect-branch=thunk issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84072 Bug ID: 84072 Summary: [meta-bug] -mindirect-branch=thunk issues Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug c++/84055] warning: ignoring attributes on template argument ‘cl_uint {aka unsigned int}’ [-Wignored-attributes]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84055 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/83998] [8 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_intrinsic_dot_product, at fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:4403

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83998 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/83998] [8 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_intrinsic_dot_product, at fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:4403

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83998 --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri Jan 26 19:33:16 2018 New Revision: 257104 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257104=gcc=rev Log: 2018-01-26 Steven G. Kargl PR

[Bug c/84046] [6/7/8 Regression] global zero-sized objects may have same address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84046 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- If you want aggregate with size 1 and isn't used to store information, use typedef struct { char : 1; } zero; instead.

[Bug lto/83967] LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/84046] [6/7/8 Regression] global zero-sized objects may have same address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84046 --- Comment #3 from Martin Uecker --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > Confirmed. I think the C language doesn't specify this since zero-sized > arrays are a GNU extension and thus in C no zero-sized types/decls exist? > > So

[Bug c++/83503] [8 Regression] bogus -Wattributes for const and pure on function template specialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83503 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/83502] [6/7/8 Regression] bogus -Wattributes for always_inline and noinline on function template specialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83502 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/84053] [6/7/8 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds accessing a struct array member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84053 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/84071] New: [7/8 regression] nonzero_bits1 of subreg incorrect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84071 Bug ID: 84071 Summary: [7/8 regression] nonzero_bits1 of subreg incorrect Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/84051] [6/7/8 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds access via an array pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84051 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug lto/83967] LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 --- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8) > and then I get > > > gcc-7 t2.s t1.c -flto > /tmp/ccGhH7Cp.o:(.data+0x0): undefined reference to `Handler' > collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status > > gcc-7

[Bug tree-optimization/83776] [6/7/8 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds indexing past the end of a string literal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83776 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4) > Isn't this a duplicate of pr84047? My patch on that seems to fix this bug > as well. > > I think we should merge these PRs somehow. This bug was introduced by

[Bug tree-optimization/84050] [6/7/8 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds accessing a struct array member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84050 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/81763] Issues with BMI on 32bit x86 apps on GCC 7.1+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763 --- Comment #47 from Mike Lothian --- With the patch you've committed to gcc master, applied on top of GCC 7.3 I'm now seeing the following error building Clang: [294/954] /usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-g++ -m32 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64

[Bug target/84064] ICE in ix86_expand_prologue related to -fstack-clash-protection and memcpy on i686

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84064 --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law --- I wasn't ever happy with the discrepancy between the computation of TO_ALLOCATE in the layout code and ALLOCATE within ix86_expand_prologue. It seemed ripe to fall into this kind of problem. sigh. If

[Bug tree-optimization/83776] [6/7/8 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds indexing past the end of a string literal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83776 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/84047] [6/7/8 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index into an array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- I posted a patch for a similar issue reported in bug 83776 (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg02144.html). It handles MEM_REFs and diagnoses the test case in comment #0 (I must have missed that

[Bug c/84063] Misleading diagnostic for ignored attributes under -Wattributes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84063 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug tree-optimization/84047] [6/7/8 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index into an array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047 --- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez --- Created attachment 43259 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43259=edit proposed UNTESTED patch (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > I don't think we want to be adding new cases

[Bug c++/80567] [8 Regression] bogus fixit hint for undeclared memset: else

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80567 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED Version|7.0

[Bug fortran/84070] Incorrect assignment to allocatable character variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84070 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/81610] [8 Regression] bogus fix-it hint for a call to an undeclared function: for

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81610 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|bogus fix-it hint for a |[8 Regression] bogus fix-it

[Bug fortran/84070] New: Incorrect assignment to allocatable character variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84070 Bug ID: 84070 Summary: Incorrect assignment to allocatable character variable Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/78969] bogus snprintf truncation warning due to missing range info

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78969 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2017-05-23 00:00:00 |2018-1-26 Known to fail|

[Bug tree-optimization/84047] [6/7/8 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index into an array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug fortran/84065] [8 regression] string_1.f90 fails since r256944

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84065 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/84047] [6/7/8 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index into an array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/84069] New: missing strlen optimization after constant memcpy with offset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84069 Bug ID: 84069 Summary: missing strlen optimization after constant memcpy with offset Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/83845] [8 regression] new failures after r256620

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83845 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added URL|

[Bug rtl-optimization/84068] New: ICE: qsort checking failed: qsort comparator non-negative on sorted output: 1 with -fno-sched-critical-path-heuristic --param=max-sched-extend-regions-iters=5 @ aarch

nu --host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --target=aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu --with-ld=/usr/bin/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu-ld --with-as=/usr/bin/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch --prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-257087-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-aarch64 Thread model: posix gcc version 8.0.1

[Bug target/83846] Some SVE tests fail with -mabi=ilp32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83846 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added URL|

[Bug c++/82249] [8 Regression] wrong mismatched argument pack lengths

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82249 --- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Fri Jan 26 17:10:24 2018 New Revision: 257101 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257101=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/84036 - ICE with variadic capture. PR c++/82249 *

[Bug c++/84036] [8 Regression] ICE on valid code in C++14, variadic lambda capture in a template function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84036 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Fri Jan 26 17:10:24 2018 New Revision: 257101 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257101=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/84036 - ICE with variadic capture. PR c++/82249 *

[Bug c++/84045] [7/8 Regression] ICE when is_nothrow_default_constructible is used before #include

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84045 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug sanitizer/81601] [7/8 Regression] incorrect Warray-bounds warning with -fsanitize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601 --- Comment #24 from Aldy Hernandez --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #23) > What would create those BIT_FIELD_REFs so early though? They should stay as > COMPONENT_REFs. I thought you'd never ask... why our friend fold_truth_andor_1

[Bug tree-optimization/83896] [8 Regression] ice in get_string_len on a call to strlen with non-constant length

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83896 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/83896] [8 Regression] ice in get_string_len on a call to strlen with non-constant length

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83896 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Fri Jan 26 16:47:22 2018 New Revision: 257100 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257100=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/83896 - ice in get_string_len on a call to strlen with

[Bug c++/84045] [7/8 Regression] ICE when is_nothrow_default_constructible is used before #include

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84045 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug sanitizer/81601] [7/8 Regression] incorrect Warray-bounds warning with -fsanitize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601 --- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek --- What would create those BIT_FIELD_REFs so early though? They should stay as COMPONENT_REFs.

[Bug sanitizer/81601] [7/8 Regression] incorrect Warray-bounds warning with -fsanitize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug lto/83954] [6/7/8 Regression] LTO: Bogus -Wlto-type-mismatch warning for array of pointer to incomplete type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83954 --- Comment #8 from Dan Bonachea --- (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #7) > This should silence the warning. > Index: lto-symtab.c > === > --- lto-symtab.c(revision

[Bug c/84046] [6/7/8 Regression] global zero-sized objects may have same address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84046 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/83956] [8 regression] error: use of deleted function ‘{anonymous}::a::~a()’

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83956 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug lto/84044] Spurious -Wodr warning with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84044 --- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka --- > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84044 > > --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- > On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > >

  1   2   3   >