[Bug target/68214] New: gcc.dg/cwsc1.c fails on arm-none-eabi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68214 Bug ID: 68214 Summary: gcc.dg/cwsc1.c fails on arm-none-eabi Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug fortran/63331] Fortran -fcompare-debug issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63331 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #4 from

[Bug c++/68195] gcc//ld produces invalid ABI results (cxx11 problem?)

-n 1 g++ (GCC) 6.0.0 20151104 (experimental) $ LANG=C make /home/evgeniy/local/bin/g++ -std=c++03 -g3 -shared -fPIC -o libmyLib.so Lib.cpp -O2 /home/evgeniy/local/bin/g++ -std=c++11 -g3 main.cpp -o main -L. -l myLib LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$LD_LIBRARY_PATH:/home/evgeniy/local/lib64:./ ./main Makefile:7:

[Bug c++/68209] C++11 code compiled without -std=c++11 but doesn't work as expected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68209 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid --- Comment #4 from Marc

[Bug c++/68213] New: Exception handling corrupts a VLA in MinGW

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68213 Bug ID: 68213 Summary: Exception handling corrupts a VLA in MinGW Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/68209] C++11 code compiled without -std=c++11 but doesn't work as expected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68209 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic, wrong-code

[Bug fortran/63327] Poor caret location in error mesage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63327 --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres --- See also pr54224 comment 22 for other examples: Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote > You will get a more precise column info (and better location for '^') > if Fortran gives a more precise

[Bug c++/68209] C++11 code compiled without -std=c++11 but doesn't work as expected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68209 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/68195] gcc//ld produces invalid ABI results (cxx11 problem?)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68195 --- Comment #4 from Evgeniy Dushistov --- Created attachment 36650 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36650=edit preprocessed sources I attached files created with gcc -E from main.cpp and Lib.cpp, hope this helps reproduce

[Bug rtl-optimization/68212] Loop unroller breaks basic block frequencies

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68212 David Edelsohn changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/54224] Warn for unused internal procedures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54224 --- Comment #30 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > so I give up. I am planning to submit the following patch, open a new PR > for the bad locus, then close this PR as fixed. The new PR won't be necessary: it is already pr63327.

[Bug fortran/53694] [OOP] GENERIC type-bound procs should be available without part-ref syntax

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53694 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #9 from

[Bug rtl-optimization/67753] [6 Regression] FAIL: cxg1005, cxg2002, cxg2006, cxg2007, cxg2008, cxg2018, cxg2019 and cxg2020

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67753 --- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2015-11-04, at 1:57 AM, aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36645=edit > Here's a patch I'm testing to fix this problem Testing... -- John

[Bug middle-end/68215] New: [6 regression] FAIL: c-c++-common/opaque-vector.c -std=c++11 (internal compiler error)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68215 Bug ID: 68215 Summary: [6 regression] FAIL: c-c++-common/opaque-vector.c -std=c++11 (internal compiler error) Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/67625] some constexpr expressions rejected as enumerator value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67625 Oleg Endo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/67625] some constexpr expressions rejected as enumerator value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67625 --- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo --- There is a funny work around for this though ... #include struct bswapped16 { const uint16_t val; constexpr bswapped16 (uint16_t v) : val (__builtin_bswap16 (v)) { } }; constexpr uint16_t bswap16

[Bug rtl-optimization/68217] Wrong constant folding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68217 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/68216] New: [F2003] IO problem with allocatable, deferred character length arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68216 Bug ID: 68216 Summary: [F2003] IO problem with allocatable, deferred character length arrays Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/68216] [F2003] IO problem with allocatable, deferred character length arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68216 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/68217] New: Wrong constant folding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68217 Bug ID: 68217 Summary: Wrong constant folding Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee:

[Bug c/61588] Optimization defaults are not what documentation say they should be

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61588 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/68218] New: ALLOCATE with size given by a module function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68218 Bug ID: 68218 Summary: ALLOCATE with size given by a module function Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug fortran/63859] OpenACC DEVICE_RESIDENT clause

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63859 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/68218] ALLOCATE with size given by a module function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68218 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/58769] RFC: Creating SIMD variant for Fortran's ELEMENTAL functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58769 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/61819] [4.9/4.10 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_descriptor_data_get

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819 --- Comment #15 from Paul Thomas --- Author: pault Date: Wed Nov 4 20:00:19 2015 New Revision: 229777 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229777=gcc=rev Log: 2015-01-25 Paul Thomas Backported from trunk.

[Bug fortran/67171] [6 regression] sourced allocation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67171 --- Comment #11 from Paul Thomas --- Author: pault Date: Wed Nov 4 20:00:19 2015 New Revision: 229777 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229777=gcc=rev Log: 2015-01-25 Paul Thomas Backported from trunk.

[Bug fortran/61830] [4.9/5/6 regression] Memory leak with assignment to array of derived types with allocatable components

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61830 --- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas --- Author: pault Date: Wed Nov 4 20:00:19 2015 New Revision: 229777 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229777=gcc=rev Log: 2015-01-25 Paul Thomas Backported from trunk.

[Bug fortran/67933] [5 Regression] ICE for array of a derived type with allocatable class in derived type object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67933 --- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas --- Author: pault Date: Wed Nov 4 20:00:19 2015 New Revision: 229777 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229777=gcc=rev Log: 2015-01-25 Paul Thomas Backported from trunk.

[Bug fortran/61819] [4.9/4.10 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_descriptor_data_get

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61819 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/61830] [4.9/5/6 regression] Memory leak with assignment to array of derived types with allocatable components

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61830 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/67933] [5 Regression] ICE for array of a derived type with allocatable class in derived type object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67933 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/64973] Duplicate use-statements could be diagnosed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64973 --- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Correct link: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-02/msg00036.html.

[Bug middle-end/64247] malloc alignment and -mavx

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64247 --- Comment #11 from Joost VandeVondele --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #10) > A few comments: > > (1) Why do you want to use PURE in this context? because this is a pure procedure ? Comment 7 is not too the point (indeed

[Bug fortran/53699] Missing "restrict" qualifier for OPTIONAL dummy arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53699 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/67742] 3rd-level restrict ignored

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67742 --- Comment #7 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: vries Date: Wed Nov 4 14:18:43 2015 New Revision: 229755 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229755=gcc=rev Log: Handle recursive restrict in function parameter 2015-11-04 Tom de Vries

[Bug tree-optimization/67742] 3rd-level restrict ignored

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67742 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug driver/67613] spell suggestions for misspelled command line options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67613 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug fortran/68196] [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on function result with procedure pointer component

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68196 --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres --- The patch in comment 2 looks good (works as advertised without regression, no duplicate in store)!

[Bug ipa/68175] g++ 5.2.1 produces broken executables with devirtualization enabled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68175 Boris Nagaev changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|DUPLICATE

[Bug c++/68089] c++ friend with template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68089 Evgeniy Dushistov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/68209] New: C++11 code compiled without -std=c++11 but doesn't work as expected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68209 Bug ID: 68209 Summary: C++11 code compiled without -std=c++11 but doesn't work as expected Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/68209] C++11 code compiled without -std=c++11 but doesn't work as expected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68209 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c/68201] alloc_size attribute and memory pools

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68201 --- Comment #2 from Daniel Fruzynski --- What about code compiled with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=1, when functions like strcpy are replaced with __builtin___strcpy_chk? This is a runtime check, so passing

[Bug c++/68209] C++11 code compiled without -std=c++11 but doesn't work as expected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68209 --- Comment #2 from MikeMirzayanov --- Right now code written as C++11 can be unintentionally compiled in C++98-mode and it leads to incorrect behavior of the code. What is the reason why it compiled on C++98? I expect that it is incorrect

[Bug fortran/68101] Provide a way to allocate arrays aligned to 32 bytes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68101 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #4 from

[Bug middle-end/64247] malloc alignment and -mavx

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64247 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/68210] New: nothrow operator fails to call default new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68210 Bug ID: 68210 Summary: nothrow operator fails to call default new Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/68211] New: Free __m128d subreg of double

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68211 Bug ID: 68211 Summary: Free __m128d subreg of double Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c/68162] [5/6 Regression] Incompatible pointer type using a typedef

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162 Joseph S. Myers changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug debug/67192] [6 Regression] Backward-goto in loop can get wrong line number

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67192 --- Comment #22 from Andreas Arnez --- Here's another version of the fix: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg00368.html It addresses an issue with the previous version that was brought up by Bernd Schmidt: A breakpoint on the

[Bug tree-optimization/67742] 3rd-level restrict ignored

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67742 --- Comment #9 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: vries Date: Wed Nov 4 16:51:06 2015 New Revision: 229766 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229766=gcc=rev Log: Backport "Handle recursive restrict in function parameter" 2015-11-04

[Bug c/68212] New: Loop unroller breaks basic block frequencies

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68212 Bug ID: 68212 Summary: Loop unroller breaks basic block frequencies Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c/68162] [5/6 Regression] Incompatible pointer type using a typedef

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162 --- Comment #4 from Joseph S. Myers --- Created attachment 36649 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36649=edit Patch that preserves the typedef but does not fix the debug test failure

[Bug fortran/66459] bogus warning 'w.offset' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66459 --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Possibly related bug: PR60500 Likely, but I get the warning for this PR for 4.5.4, but not 4.4.7, while the warnings for PR60500 appear only for 4.7.3.

[Bug c/68162] [5/6 Regression] Incompatible pointer type using a typedef

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162 --- Comment #3 from Joseph S. Myers --- Created attachment 36648 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36648=edit Minimal patch for grokdeclarator

[Bug c++/68195] gcc//ld produces invalid ABI results (cxx11 problem?)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68195 Evgeniy Dushistov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dushistov at mail dot ru ---

[Bug c/68201] alloc_size attribute and memory pools

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68201 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- As GCC uses the attribute for static analysis it can't go out and read the actual value from pool->block_size so I see no value in providing the size this way (it would also only work if pool_alloc is

[Bug libstdc++/52604] mt allocator crashes on multi-threaded

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52604 --- Comment #23 from Richard Biener --- According to the dup the fix is bogus (the added stmt is optimized away).

[Bug libstdc++/52604] mt allocator crashes on multi-threaded

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52604 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||oremanj at mit dot edu --- Comment #22

[Bug libstdc++/68200] g++ 5.2 optimizes out pointer assignment in libstdc++ mt_allocator freelist destructor, causing crash at global-dtor time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68200 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/68203] Аbout infinite compilation time on struct with nested array of pairs with -std=c++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68203 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||compile-time-hog, |

[Bug tree-optimization/66726] missed optimization, factor conversion out of COND_EXPR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66726 --- Comment #13 from Andreas Schwab --- ../../gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c: In function 'void maybe_optimize_range_tests(gimple*)': ../../gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c:3193:8: error: 'operand_entry_t' was not declared in this scope

[Bug fortran/66244] [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on assigning a value to a pointer variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66244 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|ICE on assigning a value to |[4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on

[Bug c++/68195] gcc//ld produces invalid ABI results (cxx11 problem?)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68195 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug target/68199] avr-gcc rise a warning when defining a custom interruption

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68199 astralien3000 changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug fortran/68196] [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on function result with procedure pointer component

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68196 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/48820] TR 29113: Implement parts needed for MPI 3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48820 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #21 from

[Bug fortran/35031] ELEMENTAL procedure with BIND(C)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35031 --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres --- This is C1252 An elemental procedure shall not have the BIND attribute. in subclause 12.6.2.1 of my Fortran 2015 draft.

[Bug c++/68208] New: g++ doesn't warn against reference self-initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68208 Bug ID: 68208 Summary: g++ doesn't warn against reference self-initialization Product: gcc Version: 5.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3