[Bug c++/69635] 4x increase of build time [4.9 -> 6.0]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69635 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Did you build gcc6 with --enable-checking=release ?

[Bug c++/69638] New: array out of bounds access accepted in constexpr function invocation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69638 Bug ID: 69638 Summary: array out of bounds access accepted in constexpr function invocation Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug hsa/69568] Invalid HSAIL opcode when using builtin vector

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69568 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/69423] [6 Regression] Invalid optimization with deferred-length character

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69423 --- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas --- Dear Anthony, In reply to your email message, this one is high on my list of PRs to fix. A workaround, which could be permanent, is: program tester character(LEN=:), allocatable :: S S= test(2)

[Bug bootstrap/69611] Bootstrap broken on PowerPC FreeBSD, IEEE 128-bit floating point support.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69611 --- Comment #4 from David Edelsohn --- Joseph, is the patch proposed in the original description okay as fix for stage 4 or you want a __NO_FPRS__ addressed?

[Bug target/69639] New: [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-exprparen.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69639 Bug ID: 69639 Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-exprparen.c Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/69635] 4x increase of build time [4.9 -> 6.0]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69635 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/69636] New: ICE(s) on using option -fmodule-private

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69636 Bug ID: 69636 Summary: ICE(s) on using option -fmodule-private Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug c++/69637] New: ICE on an invalid bit-field with template name for width

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69637 Bug ID: 69637 Summary: ICE on an invalid bit-field with template name for width Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/69612] Optimizer does not consider overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69612 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c/69612] Optimizer does not consider overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69612 --- Comment #2 from Roar Lauritzsen --- Thanks a lot for the quick analysis. Now that I know what it is I can fix my program, and the -fsanitize=undefined will come in handy for localizing problem areas. For future googlers, I am planning to fix

[Bug bootstrap/69611] Bootstrap broken on PowerPC FreeBSD, IEEE 128-bit floating point support.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69611 --- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner --- On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 11:35:35PM +, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69611 > > --- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com dot com> --- >

[Bug rtl-optimization/69570] [6 Regression] if-conversion bug on i?86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69570 --- Comment #14 from Tom Hughes --- Yes upstream took my fix to avoid the equality (https://github.com/mapnik/node-mapnik/pull/589) but have also now noticed that most of the FP can be one away with completely.

[Bug target/55522] -funsafe-math-optimizations is unexpectedly harmful, especially w/ -shared

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522 --- Comment #7 from Craig Smith --- (In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #6) > (In reply to Craig Smith from comment #5) > > For example, on RHEL 7, liblzma.so.5 is linked with -Ofast, which also > > triggers crtfastmath.o to be used,

[Bug c++/69635] 4x increase of build time [4.9 -> 6.0]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69635 --- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to h2+bugs from comment #3) > Thank you for the quick replies! > > > Did you build gcc6 with --enable-checking=release ? > > I am using the pre-built FreeBSD packages, I have checked, and

[Bug rtl-optimization/67609] [5 Regression] Generates wrong code for SSE2 _mm_load_pd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609 --- Comment #44 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #43) > FWIW, the proposed patch for PR69577 fixes this testcase > with the aarch64_cannot_change_mode_class change reverted. > The code quality looks slightly

[Bug target/55522] -funsafe-math-optimizations is unexpectedly harmful, especially w/ -shared

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522 --- Comment #6 from Orion Poplawski --- (In reply to Craig Smith from comment #5) > For example, on RHEL 7, liblzma.so.5 is linked with -Ofast, which also > triggers crtfastmath.o to be used, corrupting the mxcsr register at library > load time.

[Bug target/55522] -funsafe-math-optimizations is unexpectedly harmful, especially w/ -shared

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522 --- Comment #8 from Orion Poplawski --- That version does not exist in RHEL7. Looks like it was a Mandriva thing: https://www.rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/mandriva/devel/cooker/x86_64/media/main/release/xz-5.1.2-0.alpha.1.x86_64.html

[Bug c++/69635] 4x increase of build time [4.9 -> 6.0]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69635 --- Comment #3 from h2+bugs at fsfe dot org --- Thank you for the quick replies! > Did you build gcc6 with --enable-checking=release ? I am using the pre-built FreeBSD packages, I have checked, and it seems it is not the case. That likely

[Bug c++/69640] ~SomeClass() = default; incorrectly considered a "user-declared destructor"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69640 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ipa/69241] [6 Regression] ICE with noreturn and function that return non-POD

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241 --- Comment #12 from Patrick Palka --- (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #11) > More reduced test case, that does not depend on -ipa-icf: > > struct R > { > R (const R&) { } > }; > > __attribute__ ((noreturn)) R f (); > > R > c () > {

[Bug c++/69640] New: ~SomeClass() = default; incorrectly considered a "user-declared destructor"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69640 Bug ID: 69640 Summary: ~SomeClass() = default; incorrectly considered a "user-declared destructor" Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug target/69639] [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-exprparen.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69639 --- Comment #1 from John David Anglin --- (gdb) r Starting program: /test/gnu/gcc/objdir/stage1-gcc/cc1 -fpreprocessed limits-exprparen.i -quiet -dumpbase limits-exprparen.c -auxbase-strip limits-exprparen.o -O0 -w -version

[Bug rtl-optimization/69570] [6 Regression] if-conversion bug on i?86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69570 --- Comment #13 from Bernd Schmidt --- Or, you know, operate on integers. Skip the / 255.0 step where it is unnecessary.

[Bug target/55522] -funsafe-math-optimizations is unexpectedly harmful, especially w/ -shared

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522 Craig Smith changed: What|Removed |Added CC||spathiwa at gmail dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug ipa/69241] [6 Regression] ICE with noreturn and function that return non-POD

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/55522] -funsafe-math-optimizations is unexpectedly harmful, especially w/ -shared

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522 Andy Lutomirski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|enhancement |major --- Comment #9 from Andy

[Bug driver/69642] New: command-line spell check should know about "no-"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69642 Bug ID: 69642 Summary: command-line spell check should know about "no-" Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug bootstrap/69611] Bootstrap broken on PowerPC FreeBSD, IEEE 128-bit floating point support.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69611 --- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- I think it's OK for stage 4 - the t-hardfp point is that you'd get a smaller, faster libgcc on FreeBSD that way, by not compiling soft-fp at all for non-float128 hard float.

[Bug driver/69642] command-line spell check should know about "no-"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69642 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug driver/69453] unrecognized command line option suggestions should take negation into account

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69453 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/69641] New: invalid int32 comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69641 Bug ID: 69641 Summary: invalid int32 comparison Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee:

[Bug c++/69641] invalid int32 comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69641 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug target/69577] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -fno-forward-propagate -mavx and 128bit arithmetics since r215450

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69577 Richard Henderson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/55522] -funsafe-math-optimizations is unexpectedly harmful, especially w/ -shared

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55522 --- Comment #10 from Craig Smith --- (In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #8) > That version does not exist in RHEL7. Looks like it was a Mandriva thing: > https://www.rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/mandriva/devel/cooker/x86_64/media/main/ >

[Bug target/63805] ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2327 with -mcpu=power8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63805 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt

[Bug target/63805] ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2327 with -mcpu=power8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63805 --- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt --- Same question for Markus. Sorry for conflating the two of you. :)

[Bug c++/69641] invalid int32 comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69641 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug ipa/69241] [6 Regression] ICE with noreturn and function that return non-POD

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241 --- Comment #13 from Patrick Palka --- (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #12) > (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #11) > > More reduced test case, that does not depend on -ipa-icf: > > > > struct R > > { > > R (const R&) { } > >

[Bug target/63805] ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2327 with -mcpu=power8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63805 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt

[Bug tree-optimization/67282] Wrong code with -floop-nest-optimize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67282 --- Comment #3 from Arseny Solokha --- Are gcc 5 and 6 in your setup linked against different versions of ISL? In my case, it was 0.15 for all installed gcc versions back in December and 0.16, for all of them as well, as for now.

[Bug fortran/69514] ICE with nested array constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69514 --- Comment #2 from Gerhard Steinmetz --- Test case from comment 0 can be reduced to e.g. $ cat z3.f90 program p real, parameter :: w(2) = [real :: 0, 3.0*[real :: 2]] print *, w end program $

[Bug target/69634] [6 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure (length) with -O2 -fno-dce -fschedule-insns -fno-tree-vrp @ i686

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69634 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/69102] [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE: in move_op_ascend, at sel-sched.c:6138 with -fselective-scheduling2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69102 --- Comment #5 from Richard Henderson --- (In reply to Andrey Belevantsev from comment #4) > Created attachment 37550 [details] > proposed patch > > The problem here is readonly dependence contexts in selective scheduler. > We're trying to

[Bug target/69461] [6 Regression] ICE in lra_set_insn_recog_data, at lra.c:964

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69461 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org |vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/69648] New: wrong code with -O -mtune=winchip-c6 -fPIC -fexpensive-optimizations -msse4 @ i686

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69648 Bug ID: 69648 Summary: wrong code with -O -mtune=winchip-c6 -fPIC -fexpensive-optimizations -msse4 @ i686 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/69644] ICE with -O on __sync_bool_compare_and_swap with short in extract_insn, at recog.c:2286

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69644 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug c/69616] New: optimization of 8 movb

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69616 Bug ID: 69616 Summary: optimization of 8 movb Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee:

[Bug target/69532] FAIL: gcc.target/arm/{vect-,}fmaxmin.c execution test on armv7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69532 --- Comment #4 from david.sherwood at arm dot com --- (In reply to vries from comment #3) > Also for the non-vect version: > ... > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/fmaxmin.c execution test > ... Hi, if you are not already fixing this, I can take a look if

[Bug target/69616] optimization of 8 movb

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69616 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*

[Bug tree-optimization/69615] 0 to limit signed range checks don't always use unsigned compare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69615 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/69614] [6 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-expensive-optimizations -fschedule-insns -mtpcs-leaf-frame -fira-algorithm=priority @ armv7a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug target/69577] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -fno-forward-propagate -mavx and 128bit arithmetics since r215450

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69577 --- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #6) > IMO, we should revert r215450, and fix a couple of cases using narrowing > conversions with gen_lowpart that were introduced after r215450. Please

[Bug target/69616] optimization of 8 movb

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69616 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization --- Comment #2

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #5 from Jiri Slaby --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > What gcc options are you using on the preprocessed source to trigger this? By default this: gcc-6 -nostdinc -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -std=gnu89 -mno-sse

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #9 from Jiri Slaby --- (In reply to Dmitry Vyukov from comment #8) > First of all, are you sure that r12 is not 0 before the call? Yes. > Deference of 0xdc00 is how KASAN reacts on NULL deref, it does > shadow check

[Bug c++/69627] [6 Regression] Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) in (anonymous namespace)::layout::get_state_at_point

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69627 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug rtl-optimization/69570] [6 Regression] if-conversion bug on i?86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69570 Bernd Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #16 from Dmitry Vyukov --- > Could you please push that to the syzkaller tree [1] then? Sorry, syzkaller page referred to outdated patch. I was hoping that Andrew will take it soon, so that I can update the link to a more respected

[Bug tree-optimization/69599] [6 Regression] libgomp.c fipa-pta tests compiled with -flto -flto-partition=max fail in execution

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69599 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug c++/69627] New: [6 Regression] Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) in (anonymous namespace)::layout::get_state_at_point

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69627 Bug ID: 69627 Summary: [6 Regression] Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) in (anonymous namespace)::layout::get_state_at_point Product: gcc

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #7 from Jiri Slaby --- (In reply to Dmitry Vyukov from comment #6) > Also what gcc version? $ gcc-6 --version gcc-6 (SUSE Linux) 6.0.0 20160121 (experimental) [trunk revision 232670] > I've tried: > gcc version 6.0.0 20160105

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #12 from Jiri Slaby --- (In reply to Jiri Slaby from comment #11) > __sw_hweight32 changes only retval (rax) and parameter (rdi). ... and rdi is stored to and restored from stack.

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #14 from Dmitry Vyukov --- Wait, I already disabled instrumentation of hweight.c for because of this: +# Kernel does not boot if we instrument this file as it uses custom calling +# convention (see CONFIG_ARCH_HWEIGHT_CFLAGS).

[Bug tree-optimization/69595] [6 Regression] Bogus -Warray-bound warning due to missed optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69595 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Tue Feb 2 15:19:32 2016 New Revision: 233076 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233076=gcc=rev Log: 2016-02-02 Richard Biener PR

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #17 from Dmitry Vyukov --- Jakub, I guess you can close this. Sorry again.

[Bug tree-optimization/69595] [6 Regression] Bogus -Warray-bound warning due to missed optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69595 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/69628] New: [6 Regression] Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69628 Bug ID: 69628 Summary: [6 Regression] Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #11 from Jiri Slaby --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10) > If you are calling a function (__sw_hweight32) without letting gcc know you > do that, are you sure that function call does not modify any registers other > than

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- Seems hweight.c is compiled with -fcall-saved-rdi -fcall-saved-rsi -fcall-saved-rdx -fcall-saved-rcx -fcall-saved-r8 -fcall-saved-r9 -fcall-saved-r10 -fcall-saved-r11 but that of course expects that all the

[Bug rtl-optimization/69570] [6 Regression] if-conversion bug on i?86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69570 --- Comment #11 from Tom Hughes --- This is C++ so -fexcess-precision=standard is no help as that is C only. Likewise -ffloat-store is, as I understand it, not much help in real world code because you need to make sure that you force stores in

[Bug target/69619] [6 Regression] compilation doesn't terminate during CCMP expansion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69619 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #6 from Dmitry Vyukov --- Also what gcc version? I've tried: gcc version 6.0.0 20160105 (experimental) (GCC) $ gcc /tmp/af_netlink.c -c -O2 -fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc -fsanitize=kernel-address --param asan-stack=1 --param

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #8 from Dmitry Vyukov --- First of all, are you sure that r12 is not 0 before the call? Deference of 0xdc00 is how KASAN reacts on NULL deref, it does shadow check before the memory accesses. If original address is NULL,

[Bug c++/69628] [6 Regression] Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) in lex_charconst(cpp_token const*) (c-lex.c:1252)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69628 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug libstdc++/69626] [6 Regression] std::strtoll etc. no longer defined in c++98 mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69626 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug rtl-optimization/69570] [6 Regression] if-conversion bug on i?86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69570 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Bernd Schmidt from comment #9) > Ah, of course. > > 804856f: df ec fucomip %st(4),%st > > pc 0x804856f 0x804856f >

[Bug target/69613] [6 Regression] wrong code with -O and simple 128bit arithmetics and vectors @ aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69613 --- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Bisection shows this started with r226901, the big copyrename dropping patch. I didn't investigate whether it's actually the cause of the bug or just exposes another latent one.

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- If you are calling a function (__sw_hweight32) without letting gcc know you do that, are you sure that function call does not modify any registers other than "flags" and "rax"?

[Bug target/69577] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -fno-forward-propagate -mavx and 128bit arithmetics since r215450

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69577 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added URL|

[Bug c/69624] sanitize-coverage=trace-pc miscompiles kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69624 --- Comment #15 from Jiri Slaby --- (In reply to Dmitry Vyukov from comment #14) > If you apply the latest kcov patch "[PATCH v6] kernel: add kcov code > coverage", it should work. Could you please push that to the syzkaller tree [1] then? [1]

[Bug target/69616] optimization of 8 movb

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69616 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug target/69532] FAIL: gcc.target/arm/{vect-,}fmaxmin.c execution test on armv7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69532 --- Comment #5 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to david.sherwood from comment #4) > (In reply to vries from comment #3) > > Also for the non-vect version: > > ... > > FAIL: gcc.target/arm/fmaxmin.c execution test > > ... > > Hi, if

[Bug rtl-optimization/69609] [6 Regression] block reordering consumes an inordinate amount of time, REE consumes much memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69609 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords|

[Bug libgomp/69597] execution failure for libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/atomic_capture-1.c with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69597 --- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > OACC uses IPA PTA unconditionally, right? It uses it by default. I think -fno-ipa-pta should work as expected.

[Bug target/69617] New: PowerPC/e6500: Atomic byte/halfword operations not properly supported

rx 3,0,9 add 5,3,6 andc 10,3,7 and 5,5,7 or 10,10,5 stwcx. 10,0,9 bne- 0,.L6 isync srw 3,3,8 rlwinm 3,3,0,0x blr .size inc_ushort, .-inc_ushort .ident "GCC: (GNU) 6.0.0 20160202 (experimental)

[Bug middle-end/68542] [6 Regression] 10% 481.wrf performance regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68542 --- Comment #8 from Ilya Enkovich --- Author: ienkovich Date: Tue Feb 2 09:46:26 2016 New Revision: 233068 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233068=gcc=rev Log: gcc/ 2016-02-02 Yuri Rumyantsev PR

[Bug rtl-optimization/69606] [5/6 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69606 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- Testing Index: gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c === *** gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c(revision 233067) --- gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c(working copy)

[Bug tree-optimization/69619] [6 Regression] compilation doesn't terminate during CCMP expansion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69619 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wdijkstr at arm dot com

[Bug c/69602] [6 Regression] over-ambitious logical-op warning on EAGAIN vs EWOULDBLOCK

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69602 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug c++/69277] [6 Regression] ICE mangling a flexible array member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69277 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug rtl-optimization/69606] [5/6 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69606 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/67921] [6 Regression] "internal compiler error: in build_polynomial_chrec, at tree-chrec.h:147" when using -fsanitize=undefined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67921 amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug libgomp/69597] execution failure for libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/atomic_capture-1.c with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69597 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- OACC uses IPA PTA unconditionally, right?

[Bug tree-optimization/69615] 0 to limit signed range checks don't always use unsigned compare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69615 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug target/69618] New: PowerPC/e6500: Atomic fence operations not properly supported

.type acquire, @function acquire: lwsync blr .size acquire, .-acquire .ident "GCC: (GNU) 6.0.0 20160202 (experimental) See also e6500 Core Reference Manual, 5.5.5.2.1 (Simplified memory barrier recommendations) and EREF: A Programmer’s Reference M

[Bug target/69614] [6 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-expensive-optimizations -fschedule-insns -mtpcs-leaf-frame -fira-algorithm=priority @ armv7a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69614 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/69606] [5/6 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69606 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- So before VRP2 we have : load_dst_16 = b; # RANGE [2, 65535] NONZERO 65535 _12 = (int) load_dst_16; # RANGE [0, 255] _9 = (unsigned char) load_dst_16; e = _9; # RANGE [0, 255] NONZERO 255

  1   2   >