[Bug middle-end/88587] ICE in expand_debug_locations, at cfgexpand.c:5450

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88587 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/88587] ICE in expand_debug_locations, at cfgexpand.c:5450

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88587 --- Comment #12 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Fri Jan 18 07:41:05 2019 New Revision: 268060 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268060=gcc=rev Log: Reset proper type on vector types (PR middle-end/88587). 2019-01-18 Martin Liska

[Bug middle-end/88897] Bogus maybe-uninitialized warning on class field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88897 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Some of the time, the uninitialized is due to using the object after the lifetime of the object has gone out of scope. I have not checked if that is the case here but I would not be suprised.

[Bug fortran/88871] [9 regression] ICE segmentation fault in f951

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88871 --- Comment #12 from Jürgen Reuter --- I can also confirm that with the provided patch our code completely compiles, and all tests work.

[Bug tree-optimization/88896] [8/9 Regression] integer overflow check optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88896 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Starke --- Never mind my question.

[Bug fortran/88768] Derived type io in conjunction with allocatable component and recursion fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88768 --- Comment #3 from martin --- I have opened a separate PR 88899 for the openmp related invalid memory read, but I guess it might have the same cause.

[Bug fortran/88899] Derived type IO in conjunction with openmp fails with invalid memory read

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88899 martin changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||8.2.1 --- Comment #2 from martin --- Related

[Bug fortran/88899] Derived type IO in conjunction with openmp fails with invalid memory read

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88899 --- Comment #1 from martin --- With sufficiently many threads (at least 5 or 6 for me) the address santizer gives (for gfortran-9, compiled a few weeks ago): ==3485==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: attempting double-free on 0x6020001956d0 in thread

[Bug fortran/88899] New: Derived type IO in conjunction with openmp fails with invalid memory read

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88899 Bug ID: 88899 Summary: Derived type IO in conjunction with openmp fails with invalid memory read Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/88897] Bogus maybe-uninitialized warning on class field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88897 --- Comment #1 from Rafael Avila de Espindola --- Created attachment 45453 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45453=edit reduced the test a bit more It now compiles with older gcc too. The warning is there in gcc 7, but not

[Bug tree-optimization/88896] [8/9 Regression] integer overflow check optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88896 --- Comment #2 from Daniel Starke --- You are right. So you are saying that the compiler actually checks all cases of the loop?

[Bug go/88202] FAIL: runtime/pprof

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88202 Ian Lance Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/86205] [9 Regression] ICE on valid C++11 code: in type_dependent_expression_p, at cp/pt.c:25193

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86205 --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Fri Jan 18 03:58:22 2019 New Revision: 268058 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268058=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/86205 - ICE with ?: of throw and template-id. My patch for 64372

[Bug go/88202] FAIL: runtime/pprof

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88202 --- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: ian Date: Fri Jan 18 03:29:38 2019 New Revision: 268057 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268057=gcc=rev Log: PR go/88202 runtime: in sigprof, skip to sigtrampgo if we don't

[Bug c/69558] [7/8 Regression] glib2 warning pragmas stopped working

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69558 --- Comment #26 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #25) > Author: edlinger > Date: Wed Jul 18 19:36:01 2018 > New Revision: 262861 > > URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262861=gcc=rev > Log: > libcpp: >

[Bug c/88895] unnecessary -Wshift-count-overflow in unreachable code (shift)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88895 --- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor --- I agree that GCC would do a better by running -Wshift-count-overflow later (but that carries a risk of false positives as well). That's also why I acknowledged the report. Both solutions appear to be

[Bug rtl-optimization/64081] [7/8/9 Regression] r217827/8 prevents RTL loop unroll

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64081 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch URL|

[Bug c/88895] unnecessary -Wshift-count-overflow in unreachable code (shift)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88895 --- Comment #7 from Scott --- While that's brilliant, 1) I don't lack for ways to code around the problem, but whether or not I do, g++ nonetheless has a problem here. 2) At a guess, the recursive solution is avoiding the warnings because the

[Bug c++/9] local class and -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 12:42:12AM +, sje at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88898 > > --- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey --- > Author: sje > Date: Fri Jan 18 00:41:40

[Bug fortran/88898] [Regression 9] gomp is broken by r268045

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88898 --- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey --- Author: sje Date: Fri Jan 18 00:41:40 2019 New Revision: 268054 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268054=gcc=rev Log: 2018-01-17 Steve Ellcey PR fortran/88898 *

[Bug fortran/45776] Full implementation of variable definition contexts (and related checks)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45776 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c/88895] unnecessary -Wshift-count-overflow in unreachable code (shift)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88895 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- The C++ solution to this kind of problem is to use template specialization. It's a been a while since I wrote any real C++ code but this seems to work and avoids the warnings class PackRule { template

[Bug middle-end/49108] Support constructors tied to a variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49108 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/88334] Implement P0482R6, C++20 char8_t.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88334 --- Comment #2 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org --- It looks like this went in. If so we should check it off on the status page.

[Bug c++/9] local class and -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:55:38PM +, sje at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey --- > I think this is my fault. My patch shouldn't have affected x86 at all but I > see my build/test

[Bug fortran/41650] [Cleanup] Use gfc_expr_attr in resolve_allocate_expr/resolve_deallocate_expr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41650 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #2 from

[Bug fortran/88898] [Regression 9] gomp is broken by r268045

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88898 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Host||x86_64-*-freebsd --- Comment

[Bug fortran/88898] [Regression 9] gomp is broken by r268045

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88898 Steve Ellcey changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug fortran/35930] -pedantic: Check for -std=f95/f2003/f2008

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35930 --- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > I understood -pedantic such that it gives warnings if a construct > does not match the Fortran standard. Currently, it seems to be partially > used such but also used to warn for non-Fortran-95 (!)

[Bug fortran/88898] [Regression 9] gomp is broken by r268045

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88898 Andrew Stubbs changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ams at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug fortran/88898] [Regression 9] gomp is broken by r268045

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88898 --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- In looking at the failures in the log, I see gfortran: fatal error: GCC is not configured to support amdgcn-unknown-amdhsa as offload target This may be du to a commit by Andrew Stubbs , but

[Bug fortran/88898] [Regression 9] gomp is broken by r268045

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88898 --- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- The five failures are FAIL: gfortran.dg/gomp/declare-simd-2.f90 -O (test for warnings, line 3) FAIL: gfortran.dg/gomp/declare-simd-2.f90 -O (test for warnings, line 15) Running

[Bug target/88734] [8/9 Regression] AArch64's ACLE intrinsics give an ICE instead of compile error when option mismatch.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88734 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Jan 17 23:34:42 2019 New Revision: 268049 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268049=gcc=rev Log: PR target/88734 * config/aarch64/arm_neon.h: Fix #pragma GCC target

[Bug fortran/58200] Option fcheck is misleadingly located in option descriptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58200 --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > IMO it would be better to add new sections for (2) and (3), put (2) after 2.3 > and () after 2.5. IMO it would be better to add new sections for (2) and (3), put (2) after 2.3 and (3) after 2.5.

[Bug fortran/58200] Option fcheck is misleadingly located in option descriptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58200 --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > With most portable compilers, code generation options are traditionally > used for variations in the target interface, and not to introduce > functionality. Worse, the top-level entry says: > >

[Bug fortran/88898] New: [Regression 9] gomp is broken by r268045

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88898 Bug ID: 88898 Summary: [Regression 9] gomp is broken by r268045 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug tree-optimization/88896] [8/9 Regression] integer overflow check optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88896 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/88273] [8 Regression] warning: 'memcpy' offset [-527, -529] is out of the bounds [0, 16] of object 'vrsave' with type 'union ' [-Warray-bounds]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88273 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[8/9 Regression] warning: |[8 Regression] warning:

[Bug middle-end/88273] [8/9 Regression] warning: 'memcpy' offset [-527, -529] is out of the bounds [0, 16] of object 'vrsave' with type 'union ' [-Warray-bounds]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88273 --- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Thu Jan 17 22:52:47 2019 New Revision: 268048 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268048=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/88273 - [8/9 Regression] warning: 'memcpy' offset [-527, -529] is

[Bug ipa/85103] [8/9 Regression] Performance regressions on SPEC with r257582

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85103 --- Comment #21 from Pat Haugen --- > Knowing what inline decision matters for VPR, I can try to fix it too. Gathering some perf data, the hot functions for various revisions are as follows. All other functions report < 0.5% of execution time.

[Bug c++/88294] [9 Regression] ICE on (invalid) C++11 code: in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:15391

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88294 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug target/88892] [8/9 Regression] Double-to-float conversion uses wrong rounding mode when followed by memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88892 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/88875] [9 regression] initializer_list and explicit ctor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88875 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug c++/88787] [9 regression] C++ constexpr seems to not get expanded

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88787 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug ada/50502] GNAT fails to compile a modification of B37101A ACATS test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50502 simon at pushface dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||simon at pushface dot org

[Bug c++/86740] [8 Regression] ICE with hana and nested lambdas (likely a regression, tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:15325)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86740 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||9.0 Summary|[8/9 Regression]

[Bug c++/88897] New: Bogus maybe-uninitialized warning on class field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88897 Bug ID: 88897 Summary: Bogus maybe-uninitialized warning on class field Product: gcc Version: 8.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/81107] operator new(size_t) can't have hidden visibility

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81107 --- Comment #1 from Thomas Anderson --- Clang solved this recently by adding a -fvisibility-global-new-delete-hidden option: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53787

[Bug c/88895] unnecessary -Wshift-count-overflow in unreachable code (shift)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88895 --- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2) > The warning is not specific to C++ but triggers for C code as well True, but C++ templates somehow make this different. In C, you could use the preprocessor to

[Bug c++/86740] [8/9 Regression] ICE with hana and nested lambdas (likely a regression, tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:15325)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86740 --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Thu Jan 17 20:36:31 2019 New Revision: 268046 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268046=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/86740, ICE with constexpr if and nested generic lambdas. When we

[Bug target/88892] [8/9 Regression] Double-to-float conversion uses wrong rounding mode when followed by memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88892 --- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool --- Good point. So we cannot use stfs (etc.) as float_truncate+store ever, not even with full fast math options.

[Bug tree-optimization/88896] New: [8/9 Regression] integer overflow check optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88896 Bug ID: 88896 Summary: [8/9 Regression] integer overflow check optimized away Product: gcc Version: 8.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug middle-end/88273] [8/9 Regression] warning: 'memcpy' offset [-527, -529] is out of the bounds [0, 16] of object 'vrsave' with type 'union ' [-Warray-bounds]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88273 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug ipa/65873] Failure to inline always_inline memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65873 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Priority|P1

[Bug c/88895] unnecessary -Wshift-count-overflow in unreachable code (shift)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88895 --- Comment #4 from Scott --- Um... yes, that would kill the warning; but then I'd be writing /* The modulo operation is meaningless and will be optimized out, I promise. It's here because there's a specific compiler, g++ 7.3.0, that can't

[Bug target/88892] [8/9 Regression] Double-to-float conversion uses wrong rounding mode when followed by memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88892 --- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- Use of stfs on a double-precision value without frsp first is worse than simply using the wrong rounding mode; in the case of overflow it does a bitwise defined operation which is pretty

[Bug target/88892] [8/9 Regression] Double-to-float conversion uses wrong rounding mode when followed by memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88892 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8) > So we should use the current rounding mode for any float_trunc? So we can > use > float store instructions for it only with some fast-math option? No, the

[Bug c/88895] unnecessary -Wshift-count-overflow in unreachable code (shift)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88895 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug target/88892] [8/9 Regression] Double-to-float conversion uses wrong rounding mode when followed by memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88892 --- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool --- So we should use the current rounding mode for any float_trunc? So we can use float store instructions for it only with some fast-math option?

[Bug c/88895] unnecessary warnings in unreachable code (shift)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88895 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug c++/88895] unnecessary warnings in unreachable code (shift)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88895 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug middle-end/77293] __builtin_object_size inconsistent for multidimensional arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77293 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/88699] [9 Regression] tree check fail: expected function_decl, have using_decl in add_method, at cp/class.c:1137

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88699 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/88699] [9 Regression] tree check fail: expected function_decl, have using_decl in add_method, at cp/class.c:1137

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88699 --- Comment #8 from David Malcolm --- Author: dmalcolm Date: Thu Jan 17 17:07:20 2019 New Revision: 268041 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268041=gcc=rev Log: C++: Fix ICE when adding overloaded operator via using_decl (PR c++/88699) PR

[Bug c++/88815] [9 Regression] is_constexpr (based on narrowing conversion and expression SFINAE) broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88815 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug target/88892] [8/9 Regression] Double-to-float conversion uses wrong rounding mode when followed by memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88892 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Target|powerpc64le-redhat-linux-gn |powerpc64*-*-*

[Bug tree-optimization/85741] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wformat-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741 Bug 85741 depends on bug 80537, which changed state. Bug 80537 Summary: missing -Wformat-overflow on POSIX %C conversion specification https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80537 What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/80537] missing -Wformat-overflow on POSIX %C conversion specification

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80537 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/88800] [8 Regression] Spurious -Werror=array-bounds for non-taken branch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88800 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[8/9 Regression] Spurious |[8 Regression] Spurious

[Bug tree-optimization/88800] Spurious -Werror=array-bounds for non-taken branch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88800 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Thu Jan 17 16:33:55 2019 New Revision: 268037 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268037=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/88800 - Spurious -Werror=array-bounds for non-taken branch

[Bug c++/88893] Forward declaring of enum class with visibility results in -Wattributes false positive.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88893 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/88892] [8/9 Regression] Double-to-float conversion uses wrong rounding mode when followed by memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88892 --- Comment #6 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #5) > This is one of the reasons -Wfloat-conversion exists: > > $ gcc -c -Wall -Wextra -Wfloat-conversion -Wdouble-promotion > -Wunsuffixed-float-constants

[Bug c++/88895] New: unnecessary warnings in unreachable code (shift)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88895 Bug ID: 88895 Summary: unnecessary warnings in unreachable code (shift) Product: gcc Version: 7.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/88892] [8/9 Regression] Double-to-float conversion uses wrong rounding mode when followed by memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88892 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug target/88892] [8/9 Regression] Double-to-float conversion uses wrong rounding mode when followed by memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88892 --- Comment #4 from Florian Weimer --- Eh, forget what I wrote. The pattern *is* used. r253210 looks definitely to blame.

[Bug target/88892] [8/9 Regression] Double-to-float conversion uses wrong rounding mode when followed by memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88892 --- Comment #3 from Florian Weimer --- Started with r253210. I don't think the new pattern is used in this case, so maybe this is a pre-existing latent bug.

[Bug libstdc++/88881] std::filesystem::status gives bad results on mingw32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/88884] std::filesystem::absolute("//") does not produce an absolute path on mingw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/88884] std::filesystem::absolute("//") does not produce an absolute path on mingw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Jan 17 15:32:05 2019 New Revision: 268035 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268035=gcc=rev Log: PR libstdc++/4 fix filesystem::absolute("//") for mingw PR

[Bug libstdc++/88881] std::filesystem::status gives bad results on mingw32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Jan 17 15:31:59 2019 New Revision: 268034 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268034=gcc=rev Log: PR libstdc++/1 adjust filesystem::status and tests for mingw semantics On

[Bug target/88850] [9 Regression] Hard register coming out of expand causing reload to fail.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88850 --- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina --- Author: tnfchris Date: Thu Jan 17 15:17:57 2019 New Revision: 268033 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268033=gcc=rev Log: Fix Arm testcase by using NEON. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR

[Bug rtl-optimization/88845] ICE in lra_set_insn_recog_data, at lra.c:1010

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88845 --- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #2) > Thinking about this, insn 14 doesn't look legal to me for ppc, since FP > values in our FP regs are actually stored as 64-bit quantities, even for > SFmode,

[Bug libbacktrace/88894] [libbacktrace] share abbrevs between units

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88894 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug libbacktrace/88894] New: [libbacktrace] share abbrevs between units

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88894 Bug ID: 88894 Summary: [libbacktrace] share abbrevs between units Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/88893] New: Forward declaring of enum class with visibility results in -Wattributes false positive.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88893 Bug ID: 88893 Summary: Forward declaring of enum class with visibility results in -Wattributes false positive. Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/71659] _xgetbv intrinsic missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71659 --- Comment #5 from Daniel Fruzynski --- I meant pr85684

[Bug target/71659] _xgetbv intrinsic missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71659 Daniel Fruzynski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugzilla@poradnik-webmaster

[Bug target/88892] [8/9 Regression] Double-to-float conversion uses wrong rounding mode when followed by memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88892 David Edelsohn changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/88892] [8/9 Regression] Double-to-float conversion uses wrong rounding mode when followed by memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88892 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug target/83531] Build broken on macOS 10.13.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83531 --- Comment #6 from MCCCS --- After reading your comment, I noticed that there were two things I forgot to mention: 1 - availability.h is the file where "API_AVAILABLE" is defined for Clang. 2 - the part of the file the patch changes is 1:1

[Bug target/88850] [9 Regression] Hard register coming out of expand causing reload to fail.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88850 Tamar Christina changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code --- Comment #1

[Bug tree-optimization/88760] GCC unrolling is suboptimal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760 --- Comment #16 from Wilco --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #15) > which is what I refered to for branch prediction. Your & prompts me > to a way to do sth similar as duffs device, turning the loop into a nest. > > head: >

[Bug libbacktrace/82857] libbacktrace: please support binaries stripped with dwz -m (following the .gnu_debugaltlink)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82857 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libbacktrace/82857] libbacktrace: please support binaries stripped with dwz -m (following the .gnu_debugaltlink)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82857 --- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries --- Author: vries Date: Thu Jan 17 13:42:30 2019 New Revision: 268032 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268032=gcc=rev Log: [libbacktrace] Add btest_dwz test-case Add test-case to verify that libbacktrace

[Bug libbacktrace/82857] libbacktrace: please support binaries stripped with dwz -m (following the .gnu_debugaltlink)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82857 --- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries --- Author: vries Date: Thu Jan 17 13:42:20 2019 New Revision: 268031 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268031=gcc=rev Log: [libbacktrace] Handle DW_FORM_GNU_ref_alt Handle DW_FORM_GNU_ref_alt which

[Bug tree-optimization/88760] GCC unrolling is suboptimal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 17 Jan 2019, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760 > > --- Comment #14 from Wilco --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #13)

[Bug target/88734] [8/9 Regression] AArch64's ACLE intrinsics give an ICE instead of compile error when option mismatch.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88734 --- Comment #6 from Tamar Christina --- Yes, I noticed them as well as was taking a look. I don't quite understand what was going on before and why they passed but the option is wrong. Those intrinsics and are all sha3 extensions. diff --git

[Bug target/88892] New: Double-to-float conversion uses wrong rounding mode when followed by memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88892 Bug ID: 88892 Summary: Double-to-float conversion uses wrong rounding mode when followed by memcpy Product: gcc Version: 8.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/51310] -finit-bla doesn't initialize *all* items of type bla to the requested constant.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51310 --- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Yes, leave it for the time being - I will see if I can do something > about it (or unassign, if not). OK. See also pr33430.

[Bug tree-optimization/88760] GCC unrolling is suboptimal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760 --- Comment #14 from Wilco --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #13) > Usually the peeling is done to improve branch prediction on the > prologue/epilogue. Modern branch predictors do much better on a loop than with this kind of

  1   2   >