[Bug c++/84608] New: Hang in cxx_eval_constant_expression() with -fsanitize=undefined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84608 Bug ID: 84608 Summary: Hang in cxx_eval_constant_expression() with -fsanitize=undefined Product: gcc Version: 8.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/84593] [6/7/8 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (non_type_check())

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84593 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug c++/62181] [C/C++] Expected new warning: "adding 'char' to a string does not append to the string" [-Wstring-plus-int]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62181 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/84492] [8 Regression] ICE with statement expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84492 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug middle-end/84443] powerpc suboptimal code generation (shrink wrap unlikely path) for Linux spinlocks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84443 --- Comment #3 from Nicholas Piggin --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2) > If you want some specific machine code for something complex like this, it > is much easier to write the machine code than to fight the compiler. Yes,

[Bug tree-optimization/84005] [8 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-1.c etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84005 --- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva --- I guess this is a case of adding xfails or target requirements to the dg comments, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with the various vector-related pseudo-target names to tell which ones would be right,

[Bug target/66433] Arm NEON postincrement optimization missed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66433 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/66433] Arm NEON postincrement optimization missed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66433 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #3

[Bug c++/79005] Use of a captured variable within nested generic lambdas provokes internal compiler error.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79005 Leslie Zhai changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lesliezhai at llvm dot org.cn --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/81611] [8 Regression] gcc un-learned loop / post-increment optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81611 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/81611] [8 Regression] gcc un-learned loop / post-increment optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81611 --- Comment #24 from Alexandre Oliva --- Author: aoliva Date: Wed Feb 28 05:25:34 2018 New Revision: 258053 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258053=gcc=rev Log: [PR81611] turn inc-and-use-of-dead-orig into auto-inc When the addressing

[Bug target/82248] probe_stack can generate unpredictable STR on arm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82248 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/82982] [8 Regression] ICE: qsort checking failed (error: qsort comparator non-negative on sorted output: 5) in ready_sort_real in haifa scheduler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82982 --- Comment #7 from Arseny Solokha --- OK, the original issue still reproduces for the powerpc-e500v2-linux-gnuspe target as of r257975, so the change that affected this issue must have been local to the rs6000 backend.

[Bug c/84607] New: Side effects discarded in address computation inside 'if'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84607 Bug ID: 84607 Summary: Side effects discarded in address computation inside 'if' Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/84604] False positive "may be used uninitialized in this function" due to variable initialization eliminated as dead code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84604 --- Comment #2 from Craig Schroeder --- I was under the impression I was allowed to call the destructor just like any other function. On further investigation, this is undefined behavior, so this bug report is invalid.

[Bug c++/66944] ICE on static thread_local member in class template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66944 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2015-12-16 00:00:00 |2018-2-28 --- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse

[Bug c++/84604] False positive "may be used uninitialized in this function" due to variable initialization eliminated as dead code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84604 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Craig Schroeder from comment #0) > this->~S(); > a=b+2; What do you expect this to do? You destruct the object, then access its member b...

[Bug c++/84606] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (enclosing_instantiation_of())

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84606 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||error-recovery, |

[Bug c++/84606] New: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (enclosing_instantiation_of())

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84606 Bug ID: 84606 Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (enclosing_instantiation_of()) Product: gcc Version: 8.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/84605] internal compiler error: in xref_basetypes, at cp/decl.c:13818

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84605 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||error-recovery, |

[Bug c++/84605] New: internal compiler error: in xref_basetypes, at cp/decl.c:13818

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84605 Bug ID: 84605 Summary: internal compiler error: in xref_basetypes, at cp/decl.c:13818 Product: gcc Version: 8.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/84604] New: False positive "may be used uninitialized in this function" due to variable initialization eliminated as dead code

_offset 16 call_Z1fv call_Z1fv movl$2, %eax addq$8, %rsp .cfi_def_cfa_offset 8 ret .cfi_endproc .LFE7: .size _Z3foov, .-_Z3foov .ident "GCC: (GNU) 8.0.1 20180227 (experimental)" .section

[Bug c++/84158] [6/7 Regression] missing -Wreturn-type due to incorrect handling of attributes for template specializations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84158 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|6.5 |8.0 --- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor

[Bug c++/84158] [6/7 Regression] missing -Wreturn-type due to incorrect handling of attributes for template specializations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84158 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/84158] [6/7/8 Regression] missing -Wreturn-type due to incorrect handling of attributes for template specializations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84158 Bug 84158 depends on bug 83871, which changed state. Bug 83871 Summary: wrong code for attribute const and pure on distinct template specializations https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83871 What|Removed

[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 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/83871] wrong code for attribute const and pure on distinct template specializations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83871 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[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 Bug 83503 depends on bug 83871, which changed state. Bug 83871 Summary: wrong code for attribute const and pure on distinct template specializations https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83871 What|Removed

[Bug c++/83871] wrong code for attribute const and pure on distinct template specializations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83871 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Tue Feb 27 22:28:21 2018 New Revision: 258045 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258045=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/83871 - wrong code for attribute const and pure on distinct template

[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 --- Comment #20 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Tue Feb 27 22:28:21 2018 New Revision: 258045 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258045=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/83871 - wrong code for attribute const and pure on distinct template

[Bug rtl-optimization/82982] [8 Regression] ICE: qsort checking failed (error: qsort comparator non-negative on sorted output: 5) in ready_sort_real in haifa scheduler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82982 --- Comment #6 from Will Schmidt --- (In reply to Will Schmidt from comment #4) > Tried to re-create locally, I've gotten two ICE's using the provided > testcode snippet, neither look quite like the originally reported issue. > (thus I don't

[Bug translation/84207] Hard coded plural in gimple-fold.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84207 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug translation/84207] Hard coded plural in gimple-fold.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84207 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Tue Feb 27 22:06:03 2018 New Revision: 258044 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258044=gcc=rev Log: PR translation/84207 - Hard coded plural in gimple-fold.c gcc/ChangeLog:

[Bug testsuite/84597] [8 regression] test case g++.dg/ext/timevar2.C fails starting with r258029

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84597 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/52991] [6/7/8 Regression] attribute packed broken on mingw32?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52991 --- Comment #31 from Jakub Jelinek --- Thanks for the hint. So: #include struct S { int a : 2; __declspec(align(8)) int b : 2; int c : 28; __declspec(align(16)) int d : 2; int e : 30; } s; int a = sizeof (struct S); void f1 (int x)

[Bug c++/84489] [6/7 Regression] Non-type template parameter dependency

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84489 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||8.0 Summary|[6/7/8

[Bug tree-optimization/57534] [6/7/8 Regression]: Performance regression versus 4.7.3, 4.8.1 is ~15% slower

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57534 --- Comment #19 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #16) > It seems tree-ssa-reassoc.c avoids reassociating most non-bit expressions by > design (because of signed overflows): [...] > So instead of whacking

[Bug c++/71546] lambda capture fails with "was not declared in this scope"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71546 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Status|NEW

[Bug target/84534] [8 regression] several powerpc test cases fail starting with r257915

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84534 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/54367] [meta-bug] lambda expressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367 Bug 54367 depends on bug 71546, which changed state. Bug 71546 Summary: lambda capture fails with "was not declared in this scope" https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71546 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/71546] lambda capture fails with "was not declared in this scope"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71546 --- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Tue Feb 27 20:57:35 2018 New Revision: 258043 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258043=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/71546 - lambda init-capture with qualified-id. * parser.c

[Bug tree-optimization/57534] [6/7/8 Regression]: Performance regression versus 4.7.3, 4.8.1 is ~15% slower

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57534 --- Comment #18 from Jeffrey A. Law --- A couple more notes. It could also well be the case that reassociating in a way that encourages lea could be good for x86, but bad for other targets. I also suspect this is closely related to other BZs

[Bug c++/84426] [8 Regression] ICE with conflicting class member names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84426 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/57534] [6/7/8 Regression]: Performance regression versus 4.7.3, 4.8.1 is ~15% slower

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57534 --- Comment #17 from Jeffrey A. Law --- It could well end up being a case where we need to look to see if the expressions are likely to CSE to determine which is better. I'm not sure if reassoc has that kind of capability.

[Bug c++/84426] [8 Regression] ICE with conflicting class member names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84426 --- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell --- Author: nathan Date: Tue Feb 27 20:52:15 2018 New Revision: 258042 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258042=gcc=rev Log: [PR c++/84426] ICE after conflicting member decl

[Bug tree-optimization/84595] Add __builtin_break() built-in for a breakpointing mechanism

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84595 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/84602] [8 Regression] internal compiler error: in search_anon_aggr, at cp/name-lookup.c:1218

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84602 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug c++/84602] [8 Regression] internal compiler error: in search_anon_aggr, at cp/name-lookup.c:1218

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84602 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code

[Bug middle-end/84603] New: -finline-limit not accepted in attribute and #pragma optimize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84603 Bug ID: 84603 Summary: -finline-limit not accepted in attribute and #pragma optimize Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/84602] New: internal compiler error: in search_anon_aggr, at cp/name-lookup.c:1218

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84602 Bug ID: 84602 Summary: internal compiler error: in search_anon_aggr, at cp/name-lookup.c:1218 Product: gcc Version: 8.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/84600] function inlining is confused by char * type cast

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84600 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/84601] [8 Regression] std::optional<std::pair<int, int>> is not assignment copyable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84601 Ville Voutilainen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com

[Bug middle-end/84443] powerpc suboptimal code generation (shrink wrap unlikely path) for Linux spinlocks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84443 --- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool --- If you want some specific machine code for something complex like this, it is much easier to write the machine code than to fight the compiler. That said: 1) "flags" is stored in the same register

[Bug fortran/51434] ICE with scalar init of an array parameter, used in DT default init with transfer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434 --- Comment #20 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #18) > > After several people including have gone down rabbit > > holes trying to fix this bug, I have found a patch! > > The patch at

[Bug target/52991] [6/7/8 Regression] attribute packed broken on mingw32?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52991 --- Comment #30 from Benjamin Robin --- The test cases bf-ms-layout.c and bf-ms-layout-2.c are valid. You can test it with an online compiler, for example: http://rextester.com/l/c_online_compiler_visual

[Bug fortran/84594] Warning: Use of the NUMERIC_STORAGE_SIZE named constant from intrinsic module ISO_FORTRAN_ENV at (1) is incompatible with option -fdefault-integer-8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84594 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug libstdc++/84601] [8 Regression] std::optional<std::pair<int, int>> is not assignment copyable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84601 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/57534] [6/7/8 Regression]: Performance regression versus 4.7.3, 4.8.1 is ~15% slower

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57534 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug testsuite/84597] [8 regression] test case g++.dg/ext/timevar2.C fails starting with r258029

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84597 --- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- I missed that timevar1.C is also failing. > FAIL: g++.dg/ext/timevar1.C -std=gnu++11 (test for excess errors) > FAIL: g++.dg/ext/timevar1.C -std=gnu++14 (test for excess errors) > FAIL:

[Bug c++/39751] ICE in cp_lexer_new_from_tokens, at cp/parser.c:342

--- Comment #10 from Vegard Nossum --- Original test case still causes a crash in trunk (8.0.1 20180227), here 8.0.1 20180204: :5:1: error: types may not be defined in template arguments :6:4: error: ISO C++ forbids declaration of 'f' with no type [-fpermissive] :6:6: error: expected '}' at end of input

[Bug libstdc++/84601] New: std::optional<std::pair<int, int>> is not assignment copyable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84601 Bug ID: 84601 Summary: std::optional> is not assignment copyable Product: gcc Version: 8.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/52991] [6/7/8 Regression] attribute packed broken on mingw32?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52991 --- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 43522 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43522=edit gcc8-pr52991.patch Full untested patch (except for make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix\{-m32,-m64\}

[Bug c++/84599] following code gives different output for normal compilation and -O2 compiler.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84599 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/84598] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (cp_default_conversion())

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84598 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug testsuite/83983] FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr83121 (test for LTO warnings, pr83121_0.C line 8)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83983 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c++/84582] [8 Regression] Rejected valid C++ code since r257961

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84582 --- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #6) > So do you think that we don't want the patch in Comment 3? Correct, that patch is wrong.

[Bug c++/84489] [6/7/8 Regression] Non-type template parameter dependency

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84489 --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Tue Feb 27 17:26:47 2018 New Revision: 258039 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258039=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/84489 - dependent default template argument * pt.c

[Bug target/84534] [8 regression] several powerpc test cases fail starting with r257915

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84534 --- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov --- Actually, it is not a failure. I believe it is an improvement. We have less move insns now. The easiest way to fix is to change the expected move insns to the current number. I'd prefer changing the

[Bug c/84600] New: function inlining is confused by char * type cast

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84600 Bug ID: 84600 Summary: function inlining is confused by char * type cast Product: gcc Version: 6.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/84534] [8 regression] several powerpc test cases fail starting with r257915

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84534 --- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- xxlor counting failures are really common for powerpc test cases. Perhaps we should look at all the ones that do that to see if those xxlor count checks are actually testing for anything useful?

[Bug c++/84582] [8 Regression] Rejected valid C++ code since r257961

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84582 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #5) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > > Given: > > class C { > > static const long b = 0; > > static const unsigned c = (b); > > }; > > class D { > >

[Bug c++/84599] following code gives different output for normal compilation and -O2 compiler.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84599 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --- Did you try -fsanitize=undefined before reporting?

[Bug c++/84599] New: following code gives different output for normal compilation and -O2 compiler.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84599 Bug ID: 84599 Summary: following code gives different output for normal compilation and -O2 compiler. Product: gcc Version: 4.8.4 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/84582] [8 Regression] Rejected valid C++ code since r257961

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84582 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug c++/84578] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE with flexible array member and constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84578 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code --- Comment #2 from

[Bug c++/84598] New: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (cp_default_conversion())

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84598 Bug ID: 84598 Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (cp_default_conversion()) Product: gcc Version: 8.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug testsuite/84597] New: [8 regression] test case g++.dg/ext/timevar2.C fails starting with r258029

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84597 Bug ID: 84597 Summary: [8 regression] test case g++.dg/ext/timevar2.C fails starting with r258029 Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug target/52991] [6/7/8 Regression] attribute packed broken on mingw32?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52991 --- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek --- Trying: --- gcc/stor-layout.c.jj2018-02-22 14:35:33.135216198 +0100 +++ gcc/stor-layout.c 2018-02-27 17:32:17.934820133 +0100 @@ -1038,7 +1038,7 @@ update_alignment_for_field (record_layou

[Bug c++/84588] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (contains_struct_check())

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84588 --- Comment #2 from David Malcolm --- Both testcases used to ICE with -std=c++11, but that was fixed sometime between r218865 (ICE) and r218948 (no ICE). Both testcases ICE on trunk with -std=c++14, in both cases starting with r208426.

[Bug tree-optimization/84595] __builtin_trap() causes optimizer to remove code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84595 --- Comment #5 from Daniel Gutson --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > (In reply to Daniel Gutson from comment #3) > > OK. That was my second suggested alternative. > > BTW I didn't see __builtin_trap documented as noreturn in the

[Bug tree-optimization/84485] [6/7 Regression] Vectorising zero-stride rmw operation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84485 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/84595] __builtin_trap() causes optimizer to remove code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84595 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Daniel Gutson from comment #3) > OK. That was my second suggested alternative. > BTW I didn't see __builtin_trap documented as noreturn in the documentation. Depends on the reading of

[Bug c++/84588] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (contains_struct_check())

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84588 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/84595] __builtin_trap() causes optimizer to remove code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84595 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- https://github.com/scottt/debugbreak

[Bug tree-optimization/84595] __builtin_trap() causes optimizer to remove code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84595 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Gutson --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > What you want is __builtin_breakpoint (if that existed). Trap is considered > as noreturn just like abort/exit. OK. That was my second suggested alternative.

[Bug tree-optimization/84595] __builtin_trap() causes optimizer to remove code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84595 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- What you want is __builtin_breakpoint (if that existed). Trap is considered as noreturn just like abort/exit.

[Bug target/84528] [8 Regression] gcc.c-torture/execute/960419-2.c -O3 fails with -fno-omit-frame-pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84528 --- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #5) > Created attachment 43519 [details] > Alternative fix > > Here's an alternative fix that I'll run through multi-target testing. > It's more

[Bug target/84528] [8 Regression] gcc.c-torture/execute/960419-2.c -O3 fails with -fno-omit-frame-pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84528 --- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 43519 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43519=edit Alternative fix Here's an alternative fix that I'll run through multi-target testing. It's more

[Bug target/52991] [6/7/8 Regression] attribute packed broken on mingw32?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52991 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c/84563] GCC interpretation of C11 atomics (DR 459)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84563 torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug target/84534] [8 regression] several powerpc test cases fail starting with r257915

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84534 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/84470] test for address of member being null not eliminated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84470 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- When p is null p->a is not valid if it's evaluated. offsetof (along with sizeof and alignof and the like) don't evaluate their operands so they are exempt.

[Bug target/84528] [8 Regression] gcc.c-torture/execute/960419-2.c -O3 fails with -fno-omit-frame-pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84528 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/84496] [6 Regression] Internal compiler error with lambda, static and auto since r236615

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84496 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||81045 Summary|[6/7

[Bug c++/84596] [8 Regression] internal compiler error: unexpected expression '(bool)c' of kind implicit_conv_expr (cxx_eval_constant_expression)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84596 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code --- Comment #2 from

[Bug c++/84596] [8 Regression] internal compiler error: unexpected expression '(bool)c' of kind implicit_conv_expr (cxx_eval_constant_expression)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84596 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/53947] [meta-bug] vectorizer missed-optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947 Bug 53947 depends on bug 84512, which changed state. Bug 84512 Summary: [8 Regression] Missed optimization: should be precalculated in compile-time https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84512 What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/84512] [8 Regression] Missed optimization: should be precalculated in compile-time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84512 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/84482] 437.leslie3d regresses on Haswell and SandyBridge at -O3 and -Ofast with generic march and tuning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84482 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- So we vectorize less. Given the caused revision I wonder if this is the same issue as in PR84512 where I just committed a fix for? So ... fixed?

[Bug fortran/51434] ICE with scalar init of an array parameter, used in DT default init with transfer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51434 --- Comment #19 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 01:54:11PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote: > > In addition, I don't understand why > > type t > character :: z > end type t > type(t), parameter :: s(5) = t('a') >

  1   2   3   >