[Bug fortran/37131] inline matmul for small matrix sizes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131 Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail

[Bug libstdc++/65861] libstdc++ is silently generating wrong code when its std::search is given an input iterator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65861 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- There are actually good reasons *not* to reject input iterators at compile-time. You could have an iterator which meets most, but not all, the forward iterator requirements, and so

[Bug fortran/65975] !$ is not recognized as a comment when -fopenmp flag is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65975 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/65981] FAIL: gfortran.dg/bound_9.f90 -O execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65981 Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/65977] New: Constexpr should be allowed in declaration of friend template specialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65977 Bug ID: 65977 Summary: Constexpr should be allowed in declaration of friend template specialization Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug libstdc++/65978] New: missing constexpr on std::forward_as_tuple and std::tie (LWG issues 2275 and 2301)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65978 Bug ID: 65978 Summary: missing constexpr on std::forward_as_tuple and std::tie (LWG issues 2275 and 2301) Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/65973] segmentation fault when compiling C++14 code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65973 Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug c/65958] -fstack-check breaks alloca on architectures using generic stack checking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65958 Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug target/65979] New: internal compiler error: in make_edges, at tree-cfg.c:923

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979 Bug ID: 65979 Summary: internal compiler error: in make_edges, at tree-cfg.c:923 Product: gcc Version: 5.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug debug/65980] New: [6 Regression] -fcompare-debug building Linux kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65980 Bug ID: 65980 Summary: [6 Regression] -fcompare-debug building Linux kernel Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c/65958] -fstack-check breaks alloca on architectures using generic stack checking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65958 Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target|arm |

[Bug libstdc++/65978] missing constexpr on std::forward_as_tuple and std::tie (LWG issues 2275 and 2301)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65978 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: redi Date: Sat May 2 11:20:03 2015 New Revision: 222719 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222719root=gccview=rev Log: PR libstdc++/65978 *

[Bug libstdc++/65978] missing constexpr on std::forward_as_tuple and std::tie (LWG issues 2275 and 2301)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65978 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug target/65979] internal compiler error: in make_edges, at tree-cfg.c:923

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979 --- Comment #1 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de --- Created attachment 35441 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35441action=edit Preprocessed source files for gcc-5

[Bug fortran/65981] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/bound_9.f90 -O execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65981 Bug ID: 65981 Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/bound_9.f90 -O execution test Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug fortran/65975] !$ is not recognized as a comment when -fopenmp flag is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65975 --- Comment #3 from Carl Ponder CPonder at nVidia dot Com --- So the compiler is really complaining about the external qualifier here !$ external, logical:: omp_in_parallel right? Is this something not supported in gfortran?

[Bug target/65951] [AArch64] Will not vectorize 64bit integer multiplication

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65951 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||53947 ---

[Bug target/65979] Multiple issues in conftest.c prevent build on sh4-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979 Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kkojima at

[Bug ipa/65972] ICE after applying a patch to enable verify_ssa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65972 --- Comment #1 from AK hiraditya at msn dot com --- PS: The bootstrap fails after applying this patch and emits the error reported above.

[Bug lto/65950] Loop is not vectorized with lto.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65950 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Do we eventually think the loop is cold?

[Bug libstdc++/17995] gcc-3.4.2/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/eh_alloc.cc:34

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17995 Cary Lewis cary.lewis at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cary.lewis at

[Bug lto/65559] [5/6 Regression] lto1.exe: internal compiler error: in read_cgraph_and_symbols, at lto/lto.c:2947

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559 --- Comment #34 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Rainer Emrich from comment #30) I'm testing the following instead: Index: gcc/lto-wrapper.c ===

[Bug lto/65982] New: [5/6 Regression] ICE: in lto_output_varpool_node, at lto-cgraph.c:623

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65982 Bug ID: 65982 Summary: [5/6 Regression] ICE: in lto_output_varpool_node, at lto-cgraph.c:623 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/65975] !$ is not recognized as a comment when -fopenmp flag is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65975 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc

[Bug debug/65980] [6 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure building Linux kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65980 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug target/65979] Multiple issues in conftest.c prevent build on sh4-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979 --- Comment #4 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #3) I can't see these failures on my cross builds of gcc-5, though. It could be a problem of the build compiler too. Although I can't

[Bug libstdc++/17995] gcc-3.4.2/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/eh_alloc.cc:34

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17995 --- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Cary Lewis from comment #12) gcc-core builds fine on sco 5.0.7, but the I would like to be able to build a more modern version of the c++ compiler. Try it, if it

[Bug fortran/65976] gfortran man-page lists the -fno-fixed-form flag but does not define it, and it doesn't work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65976 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/65976] gfortran man-page lists the -fno-fixed-form flag but does not define it, and it doesn't work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65976 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.2

[Bug libstdc++/65641] unordered_map - __detail::_Mod_range_hashing is slow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65641 --- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org --- Currently, the only implemented policy uses primes from a hard-coded list for the number of buckets. This makes it easy to precompute (and hard-code in the library) anything that may

[Bug libstdc++/17995] gcc-3.4.2/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/eh_alloc.cc:34

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17995 --- Comment #16 from Cary Lewis cary.lewis at gmail dot com --- Sorry, here is the output of the command that generates the error during make bootstrap. I appreciate the help very much. Here is the configure command: ../gcc-3.4.3/configure

[Bug fortran/65976] gfortran man-page lists the -fno-fixed-form flag but does not define it, and it doesn't work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65976 --- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Sat May 2 16:37:35 2015 New Revision: 222725 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222725root=gccview=rev Log: 2015-05-02 Steven G. Kargl ka...@gcc.gnu.org PR

[Bug fortran/65976] gfortran man-page lists the -fno-fixed-form flag but does not define it, and it doesn't work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65976 --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Sat May 2 16:40:18 2015 New Revision: 222726 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222726root=gccview=rev Log: 2015-05-02 Steven G. Kargl ka...@gcc.gnu.org PR

[Bug libstdc++/17995] gcc-3.4.2/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/eh_alloc.cc:34

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17995 --- Comment #14 from Cary Lewis cary.lewis at gmail dot com --- It's this exact error. The 3rd stage fails. With the conflict about ::strstr and std::strstr

[Bug libstdc++/17995] gcc-3.4.2/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/eh_alloc.cc:34

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17995 --- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- It can't be this exact error, because the line number will have changed, and it would be useful to know the exact line numbers where the errors happen with the current sources (we

[Bug target/65983] New: [6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in mark_label_nuses (emit-rtl.c:3618) with -fsanitize=thread -mavx512ifma -march=barcelona

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65983 Bug ID: 65983 Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in mark_label_nuses (emit-rtl.c:3618) with -fsanitize=thread -mavx512ifma -march=barcelona Product: gcc

[Bug c/59098] Unwarranted warning: promoted ~unsigned is always non-zero [-Wsign-compare]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59098 --- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to fenugrec from comment #3) Probable duplicate of Bug 38341 I don't think so. The problem here is not only whether the warning is correct or not. A major issue is

[Bug target/65979] internal compiler error: in make_edges, at tree-cfg.c:923

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979 --- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de --- Additional comment: There seem to be multiple (unrelated?) errors which prevent the built but all of them, including the one I reported seem to relate to

[Bug target/65986] New: [6 Regression] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2244 (insn does not satisfy its constraints) with -mavx512ifma

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65986 Bug ID: 65986 Summary: [6 Regression] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2244 (insn does not satisfy its constraints) with -mavx512ifma Product: gcc

[Bug middle-end/65984] New: ICE: definition in block 4 does not dominate use in block 2 with -fnon-call-exceptions -fsanitize=enum

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65984 Bug ID: 65984 Summary: ICE: definition in block 4 does not dominate use in block 2 with -fnon-call-exceptions -fsanitize=enum Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status:

[Bug c++/65985] compiler segfault with assert() in constexpr constructor body

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65985 --- Comment #1 from rhalbersma rhalbersma at gmail dot com --- See also LWG active issue 2234 http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2234

[Bug target/65987] New: [6 Regression] [SH] Wrong jump generated for gcc.dg/tree-prof/va-arg-pack-1.c with -fprofile-use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65987 Bug ID: 65987 Summary: [6 Regression] [SH] Wrong jump generated for gcc.dg/tree-prof/va-arg-pack-1.c with -fprofile-use Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/17995] gcc-3.4.2/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/eh_alloc.cc:34

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17995 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||redi at gcc dot

[Bug target/65987] [6 Regression] [SH] Wrong jump generated for gcc.dg/tree-prof/va-arg-pack-1.c with -fprofile-use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65987 --- Comment #1 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 35445 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35445action=edit patch for section crossing jumps It turns out that some SH specific jump

[Bug c++/65985] New: compiler segfault with assert() in constexpr constructor body

-code Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: rhalbersma at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- The following code segfaults with -std=c++1y for g++ 5.1.0 and trunk 20150502 on the combination

[Bug web/64968] Upgrade GCC Bugzilla to 5.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968 --- Comment #32 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net --- For some reason, DateTime::TimeZone-new(name = 'local') sometimes returns Asia/Kolkata, which explains the -05:30 offset observed in the famous 2% of bugmails with an incorrect

[Bug web/64968] Upgrade GCC Bugzilla to 5.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968 --- Comment #33 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net --- I found only one user account which uses the Asia/Kolkata timezone. But no reason why this would interact with the local timezone.

[Bug other/63509] Misleading error message when building gcc without C++ compiler installed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63509 Chenry chenrylee at qq dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chenrylee at qq dot com

[Bug bootstrap/65988] New: Trying to compile GCC 5.1 in my (customized) Solaris 10/x86-64 fails with GMP errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65988 Bug ID: 65988 Summary: Trying to compile GCC 5.1 in my (customized) Solaris 10/x86-64 fails with GMP errors Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED