[Bug target/87006] Stack Protection with Large File support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87006 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |target --- Comment #1 from Andrew

[Bug c/87006] New: Stack Protection with Large File support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87006 Bug ID: 87006 Summary: Stack Protection with Large File support Product: gcc Version: 5.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug jit/87005] New: gcc_jit_context_get_builtin_function not documented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87005 Bug ID: 87005 Summary: gcc_jit_context_get_builtin_function not documented Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug jit/87004] New: no way to mark a function as noreturn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87004 Bug ID: 87004 Summary: no way to mark a function as noreturn Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: jit

[Bug jit/87003] New: use nonnull attribute in libgccjit.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87003 Bug ID: 87003 Summary: use nonnull attribute in libgccjit.h Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: jit

[Bug jit/87002] New: allow integers larger than "long"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87002 Bug ID: 87002 Summary: allow integers larger than "long" Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: jit

[Bug middle-end/86996] [9 regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86996 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Fri Aug 17 21:58:27 2018 New Revision: 263636 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263636=gcc=rev Log: PR testsuite/86996 gcc/testsuite/CHangeLog: *

[Bug testsuite/86996] [9 regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86996 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Component|middle-end

[Bug c++/87001] New: False error "expansion pattern 'x' contains no argument packs"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87001 Bug ID: 87001 Summary: False error "expansion pattern 'x' contains no argument packs" Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/80931] ICE on move_alloc in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:11335

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80931 --- Comment #7 from snowfed --- Wow! Read your book with great pleasure! (the Russian translation of it) (In reply to Arjen Markus from comment #6) > Yes, I am :). > > Regards, > > Arjen >

[Bug bootstrap/81033] [8/9 Regression] there are cases where ld64 is not able to determine correct atom boundaries from the output GCC currently produces

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81033 --- Comment #44 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #43) > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #42) > > (In reply to Elliot Saba from comment #41) > > > Has there been any progress on this? We are running into this

[Bug libstdc++/86963] std::tuple incorrectly assigned

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86963 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/86998] Improve diagnostic for missing comma in template-parameter-list

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86998 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0) > I don't know why all of GCC, Clang and EDG say something about a > nested-name-specifier or qualified name for the first template-parameter. I > don't think

[Bug middle-end/86996] [9 regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86996 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug libfortran/87000] LBOUND and UBOUND give unexpected result for arrays without 1-based indices if in subprogram

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87000 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 06:34:01PM +, gavin.keith.ridley at gmail dot com wrote: > OK, I see, thank you. I believe you're right on that. When I > tried to make this example, I cut out an important part

[Bug libfortran/87000] LBOUND and UBOUND give unexpected result for arrays without 1-based indices if in subprogram

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87000 --- Comment #2 from Gavin Ridley --- OK, I see, thank you. I believe you're right on that. When I tried to make this example, I cut out an important part that seems to cause the difference between gcc compiler versions. This code: program asdf

[Bug libstdc++/86963] std::tuple incorrectly assigned

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86963 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Fri Aug 17 17:52:49 2018 New Revision: 263625 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263625=gcc=rev Log: PR libstdc++/86963 Implement LWG 2729 constraints on tuple assignment PR

[Bug middle-end/86999] Incorrect code generation and missing optimization with -fno-signed-zeros.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86999 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug libfortran/87000] LBOUND and UBOUND give unexpected result for arrays without 1-based indices if in subprogram

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87000 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug libfortran/87000] New: LBOUND and UBOUND give unexpected result for arrays without 1-based indices if in subprogram

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87000 Bug ID: 87000 Summary: LBOUND and UBOUND give unexpected result for arrays without 1-based indices if in subprogram Product: gcc Version: 8.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/71625] missing strlen optimization on different array initialization style

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71625 --- Comment #19 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: nsz Date: Fri Aug 17 17:26:11 2018 New Revision: 263624 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263624=gcc=rev Log: Fix poly types after PR tree-optimization/71625 strlen optimization Same as

[Bug middle-end/86999] New: Incorrect code generation and missing optimization with -fno-signed-zeros.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86999 Bug ID: 86999 Summary: Incorrect code generation and missing optimization with -fno-signed-zeros. Product: gcc Version: 8.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/86970] Rejected constexpr expression involving lambdas and inheritance, "use of this in a constant expression"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86970 ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ensadc at mailnesia dot com

[Bug c++/86763] [7 Regression] Wrong code comparing member of copy of a 237 byte object with nontrivial default constructor on x86-64 arch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86763 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug c++/86763] [7 Regression] Wrong code comparing member of copy of a 237 byte object with nontrivial default constructor on x86-64 arch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86763 --- Comment #14 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri Aug 17 14:17:10 2018 New Revision: 263621 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263621=gcc=rev Log: 2018-08-17 Richard Biener Backport from mainline 2018-08-02

[Bug fortran/82036] [F08] Recursive allocatable class components cause infinite loop in compilation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82036 Jürgen Reuter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||juergen.reuter at desy dot de ---

[Bug c++/86942] A trailing-return-type is allowed when the return type is not 'auto' for using declarations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86942 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek

[Bug middle-end/86996] [9 regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86996 --- Comment #4 from Rainer Orth --- Created attachment 44553 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44553=edit i386-pc-solaris2.11 -m32 builtin-sprintf-warn-1.i Sure, here's the 32-bit Solaris 11.5/x86 version.

[Bug middle-end/86996] [9 regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86996 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #3

[Bug c++/86998] Improve diagnostic for missing comma in template-parameter-list

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86998 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/86998] New: Improve diagnostic for missing comma in template-parameter-list

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86998 Bug ID: 86998 Summary: Improve diagnostic for missing comma in template-parameter-list Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic

[Bug preprocessor/77488] Proposal for __FILENAME_ONLY__

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77488 --- Comment #7 from R. Diez --- (In reply to Piotr Henryk Dabrowski from comment #6) > You can use: > > #line 2 "FileName.cpp" > > at the very top (!) of all your files > to change the content of __FILE__. > This also affects compiler

[Bug c++/86997] error: call of overloaded ‘NoDestructor()’ is ambiguous

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86997 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Looks like a dup of PR 59389

[Bug middle-end/86996] [9 regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86996 --- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger --- > is this a target where wchar_t is 16-bit wide? No, wchar_t is always 32-bit. Cf. gcc/config/sol2.h: /* wchar_t is called differently in

[Bug c++/86997] error: call of overloaded ‘NoDestructor()’ is ambiguous

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86997 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/86997] New: error: call of overloaded ‘NoDestructor()’ is ambiguous

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86997 Bug ID: 86997 Summary: error: call of overloaded ‘NoDestructor()’ is ambiguous Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug middle-end/86996] [9 regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86996 Bernd Edlinger changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---

[Bug middle-end/86996] [9 regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86996 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0

[Bug middle-end/86996] New: [9 regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c FAILs

: *-*-solaris2.* Between 20180816 (r263590) and 20180817 (r263613), a test started to FAIL on Solaris/SPARC and x86, both 32 and 64-bit: +FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c (test for warnings, line 1563) +FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c (test for excess errors) Excess

[Bug middle-end/86995] [9 regression] c-c++-common/torture/builtin-arith-overflow-17.c etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86995 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0

[Bug middle-end/86995] New: [9 regression] c-c++-common/torture/builtin-arith-overflow-17.c etc. FAIL

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: ro at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Target: i?86-*-*, x86_64-*-*, powerpc64-*-* Between 20180816 (r263590) and 20180817 (r263613

[Bug preprocessor/77488] Proposal for __FILENAME_ONLY__

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77488 Piotr Henryk Dabrowski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||phd at phd dot re --- Comment

[Bug target/86994] [9 regression] 64-bit gcc.target/i386/20040112-1.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86994 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0

[Bug target/86994] New: [9 regression] 64-bit gcc.target/i386/20040112-1.c FAILs

Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: ro at gcc dot gnu.org CC: ubizjak at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Target: i?86-*-*, x86-*-* Between 20180816 (r263590) and 20180817 (r263613), gcc.target/i386

[Bug c++/86763] [7/8 Regression] Wrong code comparing member of copy of a 237 byte object with nontrivial default constructor on x86-64 arch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86763 --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri Aug 17 11:51:48 2018 New Revision: 263617 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263617=gcc=rev Log: 2018-08-17 Richard Biener Backport from mainline 2018-08-02

[Bug other/86992] [8 Regression] gcc: error: unrecognized command line option ‘-fcilkplus’

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86992 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/86992] [8 Regression] gcc: error: unrecognized command line option ‘-fcilkplus’

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86992 --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Fri Aug 17 11:33:25 2018 New Revision: 263616 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263616=gcc=rev Log: Fix wrong option declaration of fcilkplus (PR other/86992). 2018-08-17 Martin

[Bug c++/86993] [6/7/8/9 Regression] assignment of read-only variable error reported at wrong location

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86993 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/86927] [8/9 Regression] Gcc miscompiles at -O3 on valid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86927 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Status|NEW

[Bug libstdc++/86963] std::tuple incorrectly assigned

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86963 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/80334] [5 Regression] Segfault when taking address of copy of unaligned struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80334 --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #12) > Created attachment 44527 [details] > candidate patch to fix the error noted in comment 11 > > This patch fixes the unaligned accesses in the testcase in

[Bug tree-optimization/86889] s390x gcc build fails when configured with --disable-checking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86889 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug c++/86993] New: assignment of read-only variable error reported at wrong location

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86993 Bug ID: 86993 Summary: assignment of read-only variable error reported at wrong location Product: gcc Version: 6.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/86884] aggressive loop optimization and effective type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86884 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/86865] [9 Regression] Wrong code w/ -O2 -floop-parallelize-all -fstack-reuse=none -fwrapv -fno-tree-ch -fno-tree-dce -fno-tree-dominator-opts -fno-tree-loop-ivcanon

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86865 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug lto/41565] -m32 causes an ICE when the object files were compiled with 64bit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41565 --- Comment #14 from Richard Biener --- It should happen everywhere, no explicit lto1 invocation should be necessary. > ./xgcc -B. t.c -flto -c > ./xgcc -B. t.o -m32 /usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-suse-linux/4.8/../../../../x86_64-suse-linux/bin/ld:

[Bug c++/86094] [8/9 Regression] Call ABI changed for small objects with defaulted ctor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86094 --- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely --- No, because the same code is generated for -fabi-version=12 and -fabi-version=13

[Bug c++/86980] Lambda function with return type rvalue reference dtor issue

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86980 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- Yes.

[Bug c++/86986] [6/7/8/9 Regression] Unexpected errors for template parameter pack in a template template parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86986 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/86986] [6/7/8/9 Regression] Unexpected errors for template parameter pack in a template template parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86986 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid

[Bug other/86992] [8 Regression] gcc: error: unrecognized command line option ‘-fcilkplus’

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86992 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/57510] initializer_list memory leak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57510 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- The example from PR 57930 isn't fixed either: extern "C" int printf(const char *,...); struct B { B(int,int) { printf("CB %p\n",this); } B(const B&) { printf("const CB %pn\n",this); }

[Bug c++/57510] initializer_list memory leak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57510 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug middle-end/86864] [9 Regression] ICE in commit_one_edge_insertion, at cfgrtl.c:2025 since r261795

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86864 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug tree-optimization/59859] [meta-bug] GRAPHITE issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59859 Bug 59859 depends on bug 86841, which changed state. Bug 86841 Summary: ICE in gcc/gcc/tree-vrp.c:1325 with graphite https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86841 What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/86841] ICE in gcc/gcc/tree-vrp.c:1325 with graphite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86841 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/86992] New: [8 Regression] gcc: error: unrecognized command line option ‘-fcilkplus’

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86992 Bug ID: 86992 Summary: [8 Regression] gcc: error: unrecognized command line option ‘-fcilkplus’ Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug tree-optimization/86841] ICE in gcc/gcc/tree-vrp.c:1325 with graphite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86841 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri Aug 17 09:26:53 2018 New Revision: 263615 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263615=gcc=rev Log: 2018-08-17 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/86841 *

[Bug tree-optimization/86841] ICE in gcc/gcc/tree-vrp.c:1325 with graphite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86841 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/54710] moderately large tuple, with many gets, increases compile time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54710 --- Comment #12 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #11) > Created attachment 41894 [details] > result of compiling with -ftime-report -ftime-report-details -fstats > > (In reply to Larry Evans from comment #10) > >

[Bug middle-end/86505] [6/7/8 Regression] __builtin_va_arg_pack_len() computes the number of arguments wrongly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86505 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||asolokha at gmx dot com --- Comment #6

[Bug middle-end/86505] [6/7/8 Regression] __builtin_va_arg_pack_len() computes the number of arguments wrongly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86505 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||9.0 Summary|[6/7/8/9

[Bug middle-end/86505] [6/7/8 Regression] __builtin_va_arg_pack_len() computes the number of arguments wrongly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86505 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri Aug 17 08:48:58 2018 New Revision: 263613 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263613=gcc=rev Log: 2018-08-17 Richard Biener PR middle-end/86505 *

[Bug tree-optimization/86991] New: internal compiler error: in vectorizable_reduction, at tree-vect-loop.c:6919

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86991 Bug ID: 86991 Summary: internal compiler error: in vectorizable_reduction, at tree-vect-loop.c:6919 Product: gcc Version: 8.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug rtl-optimization/86990] New: wrong code at -O2 on x86_64-linux-gnu in 64-bit mode

-languages=c,c++,lto --prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap Thread model: posix gcc version 9.0.0 20180817 (experimental) [trunk revision 263611] (GCC) $ $ gcctk -Os -w small.c; ./a.out 5 $ gcc-8.1.0 -O2 -w small.c; ./a.out 5 $ $ gcctk -O2 -w small.c; ./a.out 7

[Bug target/86989] New: ICE in rs6000_output_addr_const_extra, at config/rs6000/rs6000.c:20994

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86989 Bug ID: 86989 Summary: ICE in rs6000_output_addr_const_extra, at config/rs6000/rs6000.c:20994 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug tree-optimization/86988] New: [7/9 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected integer_cst, have var_decl in get_len, at tree.h:5563

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86988 Bug ID: 86988 Summary: [7/9 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected integer_cst, have var_decl in get_len, at tree.h:5563 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/86987] New: ICE in simplify_binary_operation_1, at simplify-rtx.c:3515 on ppc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86987 Bug ID: 86987 Summary: ICE in simplify_binary_operation_1, at simplify-rtx.c:3515 on ppc64le Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug hsa/86948] Internal compiler error compiling brig.dg/test/gimple/mulhi.hsail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86948 --- Comment #5 from Pekka Jääskeläinen --- Hi Alexander. I just verified that the patch fixes the make check-brig regression here. Are you going to post this to ML for review or how shall we proceed?