[Bug tree-optimization/84811] ICE on valid code at -O3 in 64-bit mode on x86_64-linux-gnu: in smallest_mode_for_size, at stor-layout.c:355

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84811 --- Comment #15 from Zhendong Su --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12) > Can you attach -fdump-tree-optimized and -fdump-rtl-cse2 > -fdump-rtl-pro_and_epilogue -fdump-rtl-dse ? I really wonder what is > different in our vs. your

[Bug tree-optimization/84811] ICE on valid code at -O3 in 64-bit mode on x86_64-linux-gnu: in smallest_mode_for_size, at stor-layout.c:355

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84811 --- Comment #14 from Zhendong Su --- Created attachment 43688 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43688=edit output from "gcctk -fdump-rtl-cse2 -fdump-rtl-pro_and_epilogue -fdump-rtl-dse2 -c small.c"

[Bug tree-optimization/84811] ICE on valid code at -O3 in 64-bit mode on x86_64-linux-gnu: in smallest_mode_for_size, at stor-layout.c:355

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84811 --- Comment #13 from Zhendong Su --- Created attachment 43687 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43687=edit output from "gcctk -fdump-rtl-cse2 -c small.c"

[Bug fortran/84922] New: fortran reports inconsistency in rank of arguments in interface and contained procedures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922 Bug ID: 84922 Summary: fortran reports inconsistency in rank of arguments in interface and contained procedures Product: gcc Version: 7.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/78593] [6/7 Regression] ICE in gfc_match_varspec, at fortran/primary.c:2053

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78593 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kimwooyoung at gmail dot com ---

[Bug fortran/58904] ICE: accessing a component field of an unavailable type results in a seg fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58904 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/84919] [8 Regression] error: passing argument 1 to restrict-qualified parameter aliases with argument 5 [-Werror=restrict]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #3) > Umm, isn't that invalid code? The whole point of the warning is to catch > precisely this kind of broken idiom. Right? Why is it invalid? Argument 4 is for %p. It

[Bug c/84919] [8 Regression] error: passing argument 1 to restrict-qualified parameter aliases with argument 5 [-Werror=restrict]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #3

[Bug fortran/65453] ICE in build_function_decl, at fortran/trans-decl.c:2001

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65453 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|NEW

[Bug c/84919] [8 Regression] error: passing argument 1 to restrict-qualified parameter aliases with argument 5 [-Werror=restrict]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from

[Bug tree-optimization/84921] New: [5 Regression] With -O3 gcc incorrectly assumes aligned SSE instructions (e.g. movdqa) can be used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84921 Bug ID: 84921 Summary: [5 Regression] With -O3 gcc incorrectly assumes aligned SSE instructions (e.g. movdqa) can be used Product: gcc Version: 5.5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/58787] ICE (error recovery) in check_proc_interface

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58787 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:57:46PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58787 > > --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > > Does it still fail for

[Bug fortran/58904] ICE: accessing a component field of an unavailable type results in a seg fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58904 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 11:03:30PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58904 > > --- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > I get > > pr58904.f90:5:4:

[Bug middle-end/54183] Generate __udivmoddi4 instead of __udivdi3 plus __umoddi3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54183 --- Comment #4 from jimis --- Indeed, as showcased by this example: https://godbolt.org/g/nsSTHG The function calls __udivmoddi4, like you said. However, the call is inlined in main, but there we see separate calls for __udivdi3 and __umoddi3.

[Bug c++/84892] Missing accessor hint for private field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84892 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/84898] Fix-it hints for '.' vs '->'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84898 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c++/84897] Better handling of unqualified "string"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84897 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug rtl-optimization/84660] Combine doing wrong optimization for 64 bits with SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84660 --- Comment #5 from Jim Wilson --- This is what the original patch I wrote looked like. But then I tried to optimize it a bit to eliminate the redundant nonzero_bits call, and that is where I screwed up. Then I got overwhelmed by work and

[Bug c/84888] C/C++: Improve wording of unclosed paren/brace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84888 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/84887] missing semicolon: further improvements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84887 --- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2) > link to thread on reddit? > Never mind, I found it: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/84oizv/usability_improvements_in_gcc_8/dvr93d4/ I'll confirm

[Bug fortran/58904] ICE: accessing a component field of an unavailable type results in a seg fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58904 --- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres --- The change occurred between revisions r242984 (2016-11-29, ICE) and r243219 (2016-12-03, errors), likely fixed by r243020 (pr78593) for gcc7 and r243485 for gcc6.

[Bug other/84889] Ideas on revamping how we format diagnostics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84889 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/84890] Overly verbose notes for missing headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84890 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/54183] Generate __udivmoddi4 instead of __udivdi3 plus __umoddi3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54183 --- Comment #3 from Ruslan --- Ah, actually your problem is with a constant divisor. I reported it as bug 84759. If you change 10 to e.g. a function parameter, then you'll get __udivmoddi4.

[Bug c++/71167] Long typenames produce extremely hard to read diagnostics and slow down compilation time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71167 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/58904] ICE: accessing a component field of an unavailable type results in a seg fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58904 --- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres --- I get pr58904.f90:5:4: r%b = b 1 Error: Unclassifiable statement at (1) pr58904.f90:3:2: TYPE(mytype) FUNCTION create_sort_range(b) result(r) 1 Error: The type for function

[Bug c++/84916] Tweaks to template type elision

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84916 Vittorio Romeo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vittorio.romeo at outlook dot com ---

[Bug fortran/58787] ICE (error recovery) in check_proc_interface

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58787 --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Does it still fail for you? Yep!-( ... Error: Expecting END SUBROUTINE statement at (1) = ==19146==ERROR: AddressSanitizer:

[Bug middle-end/54183] Generate __udivmoddi4 instead of __udivdi3 plus __umoddi3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54183 --- Comment #2 from jimis --- No, I still see the same behaviour with gcc 7.3 on my Fedora box. Is the this link from godbolt showcasing it for you? https://godbolt.org/g/dKEf39

[Bug fortran/58904] ICE: accessing a component field of an unavailable type results in a seg fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58904 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 CC|

[Bug fortran/58787] ICE (error recovery) in check_proc_interface

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58787 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c++/84920] Better handling of unmatched/ambiguous calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84920 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/84920] New: Better handling of unmatched/ambiguous calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84920 Bug ID: 84920 Summary: Better handling of unmatched/ambiguous calls Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal

[Bug c/84919] [8 Regression] error: passing argument 1 to restrict-qualified parameter aliases with argument 5 [-Werror=restrict]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/84919] New: [8 Regression] error: passing argument 1 to restrict-qualified parameter aliases with argument 5 [-Werror=restrict]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919 Bug ID: 84919 Summary: [8 Regression] error: passing argument 1 to restrict-qualified parameter aliases with argument 5 [-Werror=restrict] Product: gcc Version:

[Bug c++/84918] Better handling of "std::cout >> 42;"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84918 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/84918] New: Better handling of "std::cout >> 42;"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84918 Bug ID: 84918 Summary: Better handling of "std::cout >> 42;" Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/84269] C++ FE does not suggest which #include to use for "memset"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84269 --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm --- Another one: void test (char *dst, const char *src) { strncpy (dst, 10, src); } In function 'void test(char*, const char*)': :3:5: error: 'strncpy' was not declared in this scope strncpy (dst, 10,

[Bug target/84908] retpoline weirdness: 7.3.0-1 and 4.8.5-16: with -fPIC: R_X86_64_PC32 against undefined symbol `__x86_indirect_thunk_rax'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84908 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3) > (In reply to Jason Vas Dias from comment #2) > > Thanks H.J. - > > > > RE: > > > vDSO isn't compiled with -mindirect-branch=thunk-extern in kernel > > > 4.16-rc5. Why

[Bug target/84908] retpoline weirdness: 7.3.0-1 and 4.8.5-16: with -fPIC: R_X86_64_PC32 against undefined symbol `__x86_indirect_thunk_rax'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84908 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 43685 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43685=edit Kernel patch for 4.16-rc5

[Bug c++/84360] unnecessary aka in error message

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84360 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/84917] Verbosity when dealing with nested template data structures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84917 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0

[Bug c++/84917] New: Verbosity when dealing with nested template data structures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84917 Bug ID: 84917 Summary: Verbosity when dealing with nested template data structures Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic

[Bug other/84889] Ideas on revamping how we format diagnostics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84889 --- Comment #5 from David Malcolm --- ...and according to: https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/84op5c/usability_improvements_in_gcc_8/dvspoet/ the rust developers took ideas on diagnostics-printing from Elm. Note to self: need to look at

[Bug c++/84789] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE with broken variable declaration in template class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84789 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #5 from Alexandre

[Bug c++/84916] Tweaks to template type elision

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84916 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- Or just textual length? (perhaps with a param)?

[Bug c++/84916] Tweaks to template type elision

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84916 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0

[Bug c++/84916] New: Tweaks to template type elision

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84916 Bug ID: 84916 Summary: Tweaks to template type elision Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/84899] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE: in final_scan_insn_1, at final.c:3139 (error: could not split insn)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84899 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Fixed on the trunk so far.

[Bug target/84899] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE: in final_scan_insn_1, at final.c:3139 (error: could not split insn)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84899 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Mar 16 21:01:16 2018 New Revision: 258610 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258610=gcc=rev Log: PR target/84899 * postreload.c (reload_combine_recognize_pattern):

[Bug target/84876] [8 Regression] ICE on invalid code in lra_assign at gcc/lra-assigns.c:1601 since r258504

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84876 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c/84910] typo: "%qs follows inline declaration "

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84910 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/84909] typo: conversion from %qT to to %qT

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84909 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/84909] typo: conversion from %qT to to %qT

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84909 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Mar 16 20:12:27 2018 New Revision: 258609 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258609=gcc=rev Log: PR c/84909 * c-warn.c (conversion_warning): Replace "to to" with

[Bug c/84915] New: documentation: __FUNCTION__ is said by gcc-6 info to be a preprocessor macro

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84915 Bug ID: 84915 Summary: documentation: __FUNCTION__ is said by gcc-6 info to be a preprocessor macro Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c/84910] typo: "%qs follows inline declaration "

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84910 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Mar 16 20:11:40 2018 New Revision: 258608 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258608=gcc=rev Log: PR c/84910 * c-warn.c (diagnose_mismatched_attributes): Remove

[Bug target/84912] __builtin_divde* produce Internal Compiler Error when compiled -m32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84912 --- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool --- It requires TARGET_POWERPC64 (not TARGET_64BIT).

[Bug c/84890] Overly verbose notes for missing headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84890 --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2) > (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #0) > > > > Reddit user "ramennoodle" comments: [...] > ...link for this one?

[Bug other/84889] Ideas on revamping how we format diagnostics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84889 --- Comment #4 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3) > Link for this next one though? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16598074

[Bug other/84889] Ideas on revamping how we format diagnostics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84889 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c/84890] Overly verbose notes for missing headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84890 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug fortran/69395] ICE on declaring array with more than 7 dimensions+codimensions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69395 --- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri Mar 16 19:20:15 2018 New Revision: 258607 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258607=gcc=rev Log: 2018-03-16 Steven G. Kargl PR

[Bug c/84890] Overly verbose notes for missing headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84890 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- Hacker News user "dmckeon" commented: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16603185 > A small idea: reframe suggestions to be positive, future-looking, > and pro-active, such as replacing: > > did you

[Bug c++/71834] [6/7/8 Regression] accepts invalid C++11 code with too few number of template arguments for class template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71834 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/84906] [8 Regression] Ambiguous conversion not diagnosed, causes entire selection-statement to be omitted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84906 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/80227] [6/7/8 Regression] SFINAE ambiguity with a pointer to array argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80227 --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Fri Mar 16 18:56:01 2018 New Revision: 258604 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258604=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/80227 - SFINAE and negative array size. * decl.c

[Bug c++/84720] [7 Regression] internal compiler error: tree check: expected tree that contains 'decl minimal' structure, have 'error_mark' in decl_anon_ns_mem_p, at cp/tree.c:3472

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84720 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Fri Mar 16 18:56:06 2018 New Revision: 258605 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258605=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/84720 - ICE with rvalue ref non-type argument. * pt.c

[Bug c++/84906] [8 Regression] Ambiguous conversion not diagnosed, causes entire selection-statement to be omitted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84906 --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Fri Mar 16 18:55:54 2018 New Revision: 258603 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258603=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/84906 - silent wrong code with ambiguous conversion. *

[Bug target/84908] retpoline weirdness: 7.3.0-1 and 4.8.5-16: with -fPIC: R_X86_64_PC32 against undefined symbol `__x86_indirect_thunk_rax'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84908 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Jason Vas Dias from comment #2) > Thanks H.J. - > > RE: > > vDSO isn't compiled with -mindirect-branch=thunk-extern in kernel > > 4.16-rc5. Why isn't it the case for you? > > All I know is , when

[Bug target/84876] [8 Regression] ICE on invalid code in lra_assign at gcc/lra-assigns.c:1601 since r258504

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84876 --- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov --- Author: vmakarov Date: Fri Mar 16 18:48:26 2018 New Revision: 258602 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258602=gcc=rev Log: 2018-03-16 Vladimir Makarov PR target/84876

[Bug c++/84897] Better handling of unqualified "string"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84897 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > Yes, we want to special case the inline namespaces std::__cxx11 and std::_V2 > so that they only show their contents as std::xxx not std::_V2::xxx. Or > maybe

[Bug target/84908] retpoline weirdness: 7.3.0-1 and 4.8.5-16: with -fPIC: R_X86_64_PC32 against undefined symbol `__x86_indirect_thunk_rax'

15] >[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help >>improve the system] > >url: >https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/jason-vas-dias-gmail-com/x86-vdso-on-Intel-VDSO-should-handle-CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW/20180316-070319 >config: x86_64-rhel (

[Bug target/84914] PowerPC complex multiply/divide calls the wrong function when -mabi=ieeelongdouble

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84914 Michael Meissner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/84914] New: PowerPC complex multiply/divide calls the wrong function when -mabi=ieeelongdouble

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84914 Bug ID: 84914 Summary: PowerPC complex multiply/divide calls the wrong function when -mabi=ieeelongdouble Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/84903] internal compiler error: in convert_move, at expr.c:229

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84903 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/84902] [8 Regression] 549.fotonik3d_r from SPEC2017 fails verification with -Ofast -march=native on Zen since r258518

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84902 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug middle-end/84891] -fno-signed-zeros leads to optimization which should be possible only if also -ffinite-math-only is on

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84891 --- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- I'm not sure what the C++ complex multiplication / division requirements are here (for that matter, C doesn't seem to precisely define which NaN - which value with at least one NaN part

[Bug target/84899] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE: in final_scan_insn_1, at final.c:3139 (error: could not split insn)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84899 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 43683 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43683=edit gcc8-pr84899.patch Untested fix.

[Bug target/84899] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE: in final_scan_insn_1, at final.c:3139 (error: could not split insn)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84899 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug fortran/84885] c_char bind length

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84885 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 01:11:30PM +, mdblack98 at yahoo dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84885 > > --- Comment #5 from mdblack98 at yahoo dot com --- > I've been using

[Bug tree-optimization/84913] New: ICE vectorising chained conditional reduction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84913 Bug ID: 84913 Summary: ICE vectorising chained conditional reduction Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/84913] ICE vectorising chained conditional reduction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84913 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last

[Bug tree-optimization/84811] ICE on valid code at -O3 in 64-bit mode on x86_64-linux-gnu: in smallest_mode_for_size, at stor-layout.c:355

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84811 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- Can you attach -fdump-tree-optimized and -fdump-rtl-cse2 -fdump-rtl-pro_and_epilogue -fdump-rtl-dse ? I really wonder what is different in our vs. your compiler.

[Bug target/84908] retpoline weirdness: 7.3.0-1 and 4.8.5-16: with -fPIC: R_X86_64_PC32 against undefined symbol `__x86_indirect_thunk_rax'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84908 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/84912] New: __builtin_divde* produce Internal Compiler Error when compiled -m32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84912 Bug ID: 84912 Summary: __builtin_divde* produce Internal Compiler Error when compiled -m32 Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/84909] typo: conversion from %qT to to %qT

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84909 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/84898] Fix-it hints for '.' vs '->'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84898 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/77691] [7/8 regression] experimental/memory_resource/resource_adaptor.cc FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691 --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9) > So GCC's definition of max_align_t is not consistent with malloc in Solaris Oh, I'm assuming here that the definition of max_align_t is coming from GCC's .

[Bug c/84910] typo: "%qs follows inline declaration "

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84910 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug libstdc++/77691] [7/8 regression] experimental/memory_resource/resource_adaptor.cc FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- This doesn't seem like a libstdc++ bug. malloc must return memory suitably aligned for any type of object with a fundamental alignment, i.e. <= _Alignof(max_align_t). So GCC's definition of max_align_t is

[Bug c++/71882] elaborated-type-specifier friend not looked up in unnamed namespace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71882 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- IMHO that's a reasonable interpretation, but so is GCC's :-) Transforming the program as per 10.3.1.1 [namespace.unnamed] we get: namespace N { } using namespace N; namespace N { struct S; } class C {

[Bug middle-end/26163] [meta-bug] missed optimization in SPEC (2k17, 2k and 2k6 and 95)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163 Bug 26163 depends on bug 84907, which changed state. Bug 84907 Summary: [8 Regression] ppc64le gromacs miscompilation since r256656 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84907 What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/84907] [8 Regression] ppc64le gromacs miscompilation since r256656

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84907 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/84811] ICE on valid code at -O3 in 64-bit mode on x86_64-linux-gnu: in smallest_mode_for_size, at stor-layout.c:355

rce-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto --prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap Thread model: posix gcc version 8.0.1 20180316 (experimental) [trunk revision 258587] (GCC) COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-O3' '-c' '-v' '-mtune=generic' '-march=x86-64' /home/su/software/tmp/gcc/

[Bug c++/71882] elaborated-type-specifier friend not looked up in unnamed namespace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71882 --- Comment #3 from Stephan Bergmann --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > 10.3.1.2 [namespace.memdef] p3 says "the lookup to determine whether the > entity has been previously declared shall not consider any scopes outside > the

[Bug c++/71882] elaborated-type-specifier friend not looked up in unnamed namespace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71882 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- GCC adds a declaration of struct S to the enclosing namespace, and makes that a friend, rather than the struct S in the unnamed namespace. 10.3.1.2 [namespace.memdef] p3 says "the lookup to determine

[Bug target/84907] [8 Regression] ppc64le gromacs miscompilation since r256656

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84907 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c/84909] typo: conversion from %qT to to %qT

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84909 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/84910] typo: "%qs follows inline declaration "

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84910 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/84907] [8 Regression] ppc64le gromacs miscompilation since r256656

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84907 --- Comment #3 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org --- The Power backend will assume that any pointer declared as pointer to vector is aligned to the vector size. Coercing a (float *) to a (vector float *) violates this assumption. The code as

  1   2   >