[Bug c++/85071] The g++ delete the memory alloced by new operator before I manually delete it.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85071 --- Comment #3 from wierton <141242068 at smail dot nju.edu.cn> --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > Both valgrind and AddressSanitizer would have found this bug, you should use > them. I feel so sorry to post this stupid code. I

[Bug testsuite/80546] [7/8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/bool3-p[78].c scan-assembler-not

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80546 --- Comment #11 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #10) > My bootstrap/regtesting of this patch is still running. Ok, the bootstrap and regtesting came back clean and both bool3-p[78].c tests cases now PASS.

[Bug rtl-optimization/84878] ICE: Segmentation fault (in add_cross_iteration_register_deps)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84878 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED URL|

[Bug testsuite/80546] [7/8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/bool3-p[78].c scan-assembler-not

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80546 --- Comment #10 from Peter Bergner --- Created attachment 43764 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43764=edit Alternate patch for PR80546 Mike created the vsx_mov_* patterns, so I asked him why he disparaged the GPR moves. He

[Bug testsuite/80546] [7/8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/bool3-p[78].c scan-assembler-not

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80546 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/85072] g++ -O1 consumes all memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85072 --- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > Doing a more "correct" patch like below shows that nearly all possible > "starts" are covered: > > (gdb) p bitmap_count_bits(starts) > $2 = 500039 > (gdb) p

[Bug c/82272] RFE: request a warning for ( == ) etc.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82272 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- I submitted N2229 to WG14: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2229.htm I also opened Glibc bug for isdigit() et al. referenced in the paper:

[Bug target/58684] powerpc uses only unordered floating-point compares

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58684 --- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool --- Patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-03/msg01405.html .

[Bug target/58684] powerpc uses only unordered floating-point compares

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58684 --- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool --- *** Bug 84366 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug target/84366] gcc.dg/torture/float128-cmp-invalid.c fails when run on power9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84366 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/85087] call to a non-const member function on a const lvalue accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85087 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid --- Comment #1 from

[Bug c++/85087] New: call to a non-const member function on a const lvalue accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85087 Bug ID: 85087 Summary: call to a non-const member function on a const lvalue accepted Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/84774] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wrestrict

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84774 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/84905] Improve warning for __attribute__((const)) on function returning void

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84905 --- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4) > Resolving as Won't Fix based on comment #2. (I will update > gcc-8/changes.html before the release and may update the documentation of > attribute const in the

[Bug fortran/80645] FAIL: gfortran.dg/elemental_subroutine_3.f90 -O1 (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80645 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/85085] [8 regression] Test case gfortran.dg/elemental_subroutine_3.f90 fails with __builtin_memcpy warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85085 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/448] -related issues (C99 issues)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=448 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW Last reconfirmed|2008-04-15

[Bug target/83638] atomic_is_lock_free should return false on pa-risc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83638 --- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2018-03-26 2:23 PM, mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz wrote: > If the userspace wants to optimize different code paths for lockless atomics > and for locked atomics, atomic_is_lock_free

[Bug testsuite/83462] [8 regression] c-c++-common/Warray-bounds-3.c fails on arm-none-eabi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83462 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c/84175] FAIL: c-c++-common/Warray-bounds-4.c -Wc++-compat strcpy (test for warnings, line 67)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84175 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED See Also|

[Bug tree-optimization/79958] Missed tree DSE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79958 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #3

[Bug libgcc/85086] New: _Unwind_Resume can't unwind shadow stack with thread cancellation and alternate signal stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85086 Bug ID: 85086 Summary: _Unwind_Resume can't unwind shadow stack with thread cancellation and alternate signal stack Product: gcc Version: 8.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/80791] [8 regression] test case gcc.dg/sms-1.c fail2 starting with r247885

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80791 --- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt --- It's not clear yet what we should do with this. It looks like SMS is able to figure out that the sign-extension is not needed in the pre-r247885 code, but can't sort this out with the IVOPTS change. The

[Bug middle-end/85085] New: [8 regression] Test case gfortran.dg/elemental_subroutine_3.f90 fails with __builtin_memcpy warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85085 Bug ID: 85085 Summary: [8 regression] Test case gfortran.dg/elemental_subroutine_3.f90 fails with __builtin_memcpy warnings Product: gcc Version: 8.0

[Bug fortran/85083] [8 Regression] ICE in gfc_convert_to_structure_constructor, at fortran/primary.c:2915

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85083 --- Comment #3 from Harald Anlauf --- Patch posted: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2018-03/msg00197.html

[Bug middle-end/83665] [8 regression] Big code size regression and some code quality improvement at Jan 2 2018

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83665 Pat Haugen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug fortran/85082] [8 Regression] ICE with -Ofast in vn_reference_insert_pieces, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:2624

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85082 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug fortran/85083] [8 Regression] ICE in gfc_convert_to_structure_constructor, at fortran/primary.c:2915

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85083 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug c/84175] FAIL: c-c++-common/Warray-bounds-4.c -Wc++-compat strcpy (test for warnings, line 67)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84175 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target|hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 |hppa64-hp-hpux11.11,

[Bug target/83638] atomic_is_lock_free should return false on pa-risc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83638 --- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2018-03-26 2:23 PM, mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83638 > > --- Comment #2 from mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz --- >

[Bug c/448] -related issues (C99 issues)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=448 --- Comment #38 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- I think the correct state is NEW. There is a well-defined set of target OSes that lack the target macro definitions describing those targets' stdint.h types, each of which should be

[Bug fortran/85083] [8 Regression] ICE in gfc_convert_to_structure_constructor, at fortran/primary.c:2915

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85083 Harald Anlauf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gmx dot de --- Comment #1

[Bug fortran/85084] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE: out of memory allocating 18446744073709551600 bytes ...

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85084 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug target/84878] ICE: Segmentation fault (in add_cross_iteration_register_deps)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84878 --- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner --- So we segv in ddg.c:add_cross_iteration_register_deps() at this code: /* Create inter-loop true dependences and anti dependences. */ for (r_use = DF_REF_CHAIN (last_def); r_use != NULL; r_use =

[Bug target/85073] [x86] extra check after BLSR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85073 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/85073] [x86] extra check after BLSR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85073 --- Comment #1 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Mon Mar 26 19:26:19 2018 New Revision: 258864 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258864=gcc=rev Log: PR target/85073 * config/i386/i386.md (*bmi_blsr__cmp): New

[Bug ipa/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 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target|hppa-unknown-linux-gnu, |hppa-unknown-linux-gnu,

[Bug fortran/85084] New: [6/7/8 Regression] ICE: out of memory allocating 18446744073709551600 bytes ...

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85084 Bug ID: 85084 Summary: [6/7/8 Regression] ICE: out of memory allocating 18446744073709551600 bytes ... Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/85083] New: [8 Regression] ICE in gfc_convert_to_structure_constructor, at fortran/primary.c:2915

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85083 Bug ID: 85083 Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in gfc_convert_to_structure_constructor, at fortran/primary.c:2915 Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status:

[Bug fortran/85082] New: [8 Regression] ICE with -Ofast in vn_reference_insert_pieces, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:2624

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85082 Bug ID: 85082 Summary: [8 Regression] ICE with -Ofast in vn_reference_insert_pieces, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:2624 Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/83638] atomic_is_lock_free should return false on pa-risc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83638 --- Comment #2 from mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz --- >From performance point of view it doesn't matter if the lock is taken inside the kernel or inside the gcc library. If the userspace wants to optimize different code paths for

[Bug lto/81968] [8 regression] early lto debug objects make Solaris ld SEGV

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968 --- Comment #68 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #67) > On March 26, 2018 2:46:08 PM GMT+02:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" > wrote: >

[Bug c/39808] warn_unused_result fails to produce warning in a statement expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39808 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|dave.pagan

[Bug middle-end/82004] [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 628.pop2_s miscompare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82004 --- Comment #35 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 43763 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43763=edit pr82004_dumps.tar.xz Dumps. For lto I've just added the init_sw_absorption function parts of the dump, the dumps

[Bug lto/81968] [8 regression] early lto debug objects make Solaris ld SEGV

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968 --- Comment #67 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On March 26, 2018 2:46:08 PM GMT+02:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968 > >--- Comment #66 from Jakub Jelinek ---

[Bug c/55976] -Werror=return-type should error on returning a value from a void function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55976 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|dave.pagan

[Bug middle-end/82004] [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 628.pop2_s miscompare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82004 --- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek --- Ok, I can now reproduce, but only with -flto, not without that. Without -flto, before pre I see: [local count: 85892]: # logchl_591 = PHI <-3.0097868371792719699442386627197265625e+0(33),

[Bug sanitizer/85081] New: [7(8 Regression] Sanitizer error with references in vectorized/parallel for-loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85081 Bug ID: 85081 Summary: [7(8 Regression] Sanitizer error with references in vectorized/parallel for-loop Product: gcc Version: 8.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/85062] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE on alignas with parameter pack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85062 --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Mon Mar 26 16:30:41 2018 New Revision: 258859 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258859=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/85062 - ICE with alignas in wrong place. * decl.c

[Bug target/85080] [8 regression] gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-pr37194.c fails starting with r248678

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85080 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target||powerpc64*-*-*

[Bug target/85080] New: [8 regression] gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-pr37194.c fails starting with r248678

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85080 Bug ID: 85080 Summary: [8 regression] gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-pr37194.c fails starting with r248678 Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status:

[Bug libstdc++/28457] ext/pb_ds/regression/tree_data_map_rand.cc fails with a particular random seed.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28457 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/85078] LTO ICE: tree check: expected tree that contains 'decl minimal' structure, have 'identifier_node' in decl_mangling_context, at cp/mangle.c:878

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85078 --- Comment #1 from Franz Sirl --- The ICE was introduced between r257623 and r257685.

[Bug c++/85071] The g++ delete the memory alloced by new operator before I manually delete it.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85071 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Both valgrind and AddressSanitizer would have found this bug, you should use them.

[Bug c++/85071] The g++ delete the memory alloced by new operator before I manually delete it.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85071 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/84737] [8 Regression] 20% degradation in CPU2000 172.mgrid starting with r256888

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84737 --- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor --- I guess you'll need to check whether it is PR 55334 (i.e. not preserving restrict accross ipa-cp and/or inlining) coming back somehow...

[Bug target/84786] [miscompilation] vunpcklpd accessing xmm16-22 targeting KNL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84786 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- For 7.x I think we need: --- gcc/config/i386/sse.md.jj 2018-03-05 17:04:45.820743323 +0100 +++ gcc/config/i386/sse.md 2018-03-26 17:29:00.967880855 +0200 @@ -10687,7 +10687,7 @@ [(set

[Bug target/84878] ICE: Segmentation fault (in add_cross_iteration_register_deps)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84878 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/85079] New: Segfault While Compiling DXX-Rebirth Project

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85079 Bug ID: 85079 Summary: Segfault While Compiling DXX-Rebirth Project Product: gcc Version: 7.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug libstdc++/84654] libstdc++ tries to use __float128 when compiling with -mno-float128

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84654 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #2 from Jonathan

[Bug target/84786] [miscompilation] vunpcklpd accessing xmm16-22 targeting KNL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84786 --- Comment #11 from Matthias Kretz --- Created attachment 43762 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43762=edit test case that produces incorrect vpsrlw Compiled with `g++-7 -std=c++17 -O0 -fabi-version=0 -fabi-compat-version=0

[Bug target/84786] [miscompilation] vunpcklpd accessing xmm16-22 targeting KNL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84786 --- Comment #10 from Matthias Kretz --- This is all I have right now: TID 0 SDE-ERROR: Executed instruction not valid for specified chip (KNL): 0x70d281: vpsrlw xmm0, xmm0, xmm16 Image:

[Bug middle-end/82004] [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 628.pop2_s miscompare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82004 --- Comment #33 from Andrey Guskov --- This is the full execution line I used to produce the log in question, and with which the test continues failing: $ gfortran -fdump-tree-all -fdump-rtl-all -m64 -c -o sw_absorption.fppized.o

[Bug middle-end/82004] [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 628.pop2_s miscompare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82004 --- Comment #32 from Andrey Guskov --- Created attachment 43761 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43761=edit Dump as requested in #c31 Jakub, see the attachment. This is the log of what I get, packed in 7Z. At a glance, the

[Bug target/84786] [miscompilation] vunpcklpd accessing xmm16-22 targeting KNL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84786 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Matthias Kretz from comment #8) > There seems to be a similar bug for vpsrlw and vpsllw. Do you need a > testcase? (It's hard to hit the bug... just had one occur on a Travis CI > build) I

[Bug c++/85062] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE on alignas with parameter pack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85062 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/85049] [8 Regression] Internal compiler error with __integer_pack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85049 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Mon Mar 26 14:37:50 2018 New Revision: 258856 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258856=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/85049 - ICE with __integer_pack. * pt.c

[Bug c++/85049] [8 Regression] Internal compiler error with __integer_pack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85049 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/85078] New: LTO ICE: tree check: expected tree that contains 'decl minimal' structure, have 'identifier_node' in decl_mangling_context, at cp/mangle.c:878

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85078 Bug ID: 85078 Summary: LTO ICE: tree check: expected tree that contains 'decl minimal' structure, have 'identifier_node' in decl_mangling_context, at cp/mangle.c:878

[Bug middle-end/85074] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr81812.C (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85074 --- Comment #2 from John David Anglin --- We have default TARGET_USE_LOCAL_THUNK_ALIAS_P and TARGET_ASM_CAN_OUTPUT_MI_THUNK is default_can_output_mi_thunk_no_vcall(). if (!this_adjusting || !targetm.asm_out.can_output_mi_thunk

[Bug c++/85077] [8 Regression] V[248][SD]F abs not optimized to

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85077 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Status|WAITING

[Bug target/84786] [miscompilation] vunpcklpd accessing xmm16-22 targeting KNL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84786 --- Comment #8 from Matthias Kretz --- There seems to be a similar bug for vpsrlw and vpsllw. Do you need a testcase? (It's hard to hit the bug... just had one occur on a Travis CI build)

[Bug other/31852] Missing __builtin_memchr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31852 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Mon Mar 26 13:09:10 2018 New Revision: 258854 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258854=gcc=rev Log: Add workaround to std::variant for Clang bug 31852 * include/std/variant

[Bug c/78568] [6/7/8/9 Regression] Wtype-limits warning regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78568 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||deferred Target Milestone|6.5

[Bug target/81084] [8 Regression] powerpcspe port full of confusing configury / command-line options not related to SPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81084 --- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek --- Andrew, a friendly ping on this. The #c13 patch looks like a good progress, what happened to it?

[Bug lto/81968] [8 regression] early lto debug objects make Solaris ld SEGV

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968 --- Comment #66 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #63) > --- gcc/dwarf2out.c 2018-03-11 17:48:53.498068316 +0100 > +++ gcc/dwarf2out.c 2018-03-13 10:58:03.477514623 +0100 > @@ -28282,6 +28282,7 @@ output_macinfo

[Bug inline-asm/85030] [6/7 Regression] internal compiler error: Floating point exception (validate_subreg())

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85030 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] internal |[6/7 Regression] internal

[Bug c++/85077] V[248][SD]F abs not optimized to

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85077 --- Comment #4 from Matthias Kretz --- Oh, there seems to be a regression in GCC 8. In 7 it works as you say. In 8 I can't get the andps to show up

[Bug c++/85077] V[248][SD]F abs not optimized to

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85077 --- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz --- Ouch, right I didn't think of non-finite values. I.e. -0 < 0 is false... However, this is what I wanted: abs(-inf) -> inf abs( inf) -> inf abs( nan) -> nan abs( -0) -> 0 abs( 0) -> 0 The sign bit

[Bug go/84948] [8 regression] ICE in set_from, at go/gofrontend/types.cc:2660

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84948 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 CC|

[Survey Invite] Bug report duplication problem - Help our study

I've invited you to fill out the following form: Professional Profile To fill it out, visit: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfQTZkrylE1t49gjzewPQSPWHFnPtGCZfRujg_G8VTwqGrbHg/viewform?c=0w=1usp=mail_form_link Dear friend, I am a masters student in Computer Science at the Federal

[Bug lto/85047] cdd2a01 (and others) FAIL with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85047 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/78200] [7/8 Regression] 429.mcf of cpu2006 regresses in GCC trunk for avx2 target.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78200 --- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 43759 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43759=edit gcc8-pr78200.patch Does this patch make any difference on the benchmark?

[Bug c++/85077] V[248][SD]F abs not optimized to

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85077 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |c++ --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener

[Bug target/85077] V[248][SD]F abs not optimized to

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85077 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/85070] [8 Regression] ICE on C++ code: in lazily_declare_fn, at cp/method.c:2409

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85070 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/85046] [8 Regression] cp/name-lookup.c:6175:53: runtime error: member access within null pointer of type 'struct cp_binding_level'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85046 --- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell --- Created attachment 43758 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43758=edit another example I've further altered the testcase. This one ICEs at #3 all the way back to gcc-5 (at least).

[Bug tree-optimization/85050] Vectorized function - suboptimal gather

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85050 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > > IIRC there's a related bug with regard to double <-> float conversions and > > SSE > > vectorization. Can't find it right

[Bug tree-optimization/85050] Vectorized function - suboptimal gather

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85050 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > IIRC there's a related bug with regard to double <-> float conversions and > SSE > vectorization. Can't find it right now. PR 36844?

[Bug target/83789] __builtin_altivec_lvx fails for powerpc for altivec-4.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83789 --- Comment #27 from kaushikp at gcc dot gnu.org --- I have verified the backported patch to GCC-7 and it fixes the issues I had observed earlier. Thanks again Peter for this!

[Bug c++/85061] ICE with __builtin_offsetof applied to static member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85061 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 43757 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43757=edit gcc8-pr85061.patch Untested fix.

[Bug target/85077] New: V[248][SD]F abs not optimized to

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85077 Bug ID: 85077 Summary: V[248][SD]F abs not optimized to Product: gcc Version: 8.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug lto/84592] [openacc,openmp] lto1: ICE in input_varpool_node, at lto-cgraph.c:1424: for function static var

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84592 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[openacc,openmp] lto1: ICE |[openacc,openmp] lto1: ICE

[Bug tree-optimization/85063] Support switch conversion in offloading functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85063 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |vries at gcc dot gnu.org Target

[Bug tree-optimization/85063] Support switch conversion in offloading functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85063 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/85063] Support switch conversion in offloading functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85063 --- Comment #10 from Tom de Vries --- Author: vries Date: Mon Mar 26 09:45:49 2018 New Revision: 258852 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258852=gcc=rev Log: Fix switch conversion in offloading functions 2018-03-26 Tom de Vries

[Bug c++/85076] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE with invalid template used as lambda argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85076 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/85076] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE with invalid template used as lambda argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85076 --- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > That matches what build_pointer_type and build_reference_type do as well. Then, I say, let's definitely go with that!

[Bug c++/85057] GCC fails to vectorize code unless dummy loop is added

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85057 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug c++/85076] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE with invalid template used as lambda argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85076 --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini --- Or in forward_parm itself, right after 'tree type = TREE_TYPE (parm);' would be very safe too.

  1   2   >