[Bug gcov-profile/77921] [7 Regression] tree-ssanames.c miscompiled during PGO bootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77921 --- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- gcc version 7.0.0 20161007 was fine

[Bug tree-optimization/77916] [6/7 Regression] ICE in verify_gimple_in_cfg: invalid (pointer) operands to plus/minus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77916 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug middle-end/77920] New: [7 Regression] 186.crafty doesn't compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77920 Bug ID: 77920 Summary: [7 Regression] 186.crafty doesn't compile Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug middle-end/77920] [7 Regression] 186.crafty doesn't compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77920 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org Target

[Bug rtl-optimization/77919] ICE converting DC to V2DF mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77919 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

[Bug target/77918] S390: Floating point comparisons don't raise invalid for unordered operands.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77918 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug target/77918] S390: Floating point comparisons don't raise invalid for unordered operands.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77918 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #39781|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug rtl-optimization/77919] ICE converting DC to V2DF mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77919 --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 39782 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39782=edit another test-case Following simplified test-case ICEs on 5.1.0+: $ g++ pr77919-2.cpp -c -O1 -std=c++11

[Bug middle-end/77920] [7 Regression] 186.crafty doesn't compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77920 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug gcov-profile/77921] New: [7 Regression] tree-ssanames.c miscompiled during PGO bootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77921 Bug ID: 77921 Summary: [7 Regression] tree-ssanames.c miscompiled during PGO bootstrap Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/32658] Supposedly illegal conversion compiles without errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32658 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/77918] New: S390: Floating point comparisons don't raise invalid for unordered opperands.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77918 Bug ID: 77918 Summary: S390: Floating point comparisons don't raise invalid for unordered opperands. Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/77919] New: ICE converting DC to V2DF mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77919 Bug ID: 77919 Summary: ICE converting DC to V2DF mode Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: rtl-optimization

[Bug bootstrap/77917] undefined reference to '__aeabi_unwind_cpp_pr0' during ARM bootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77917 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/77738] Invalid initialisation of ar.lc register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77738 --- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab --- Author: schwab Date: Mon Oct 10 12:16:00 2016 New Revision: 240918 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240918=gcc=rev Log: PR target/77738 * config/ia64/ia64.md ("doloop_end"): Reject if mode of loop

[Bug target/77738] Invalid initialisation of ar.lc register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77738 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/55039] std::addressof vs. constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55039 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/77899] incorrect VR_RANGE for a signed char function argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77899 --- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse --- I don't see what "signed" has to do with it. void f (unsigned char i) { char d [1260]; const char *p = [130]; p += i; if (p < d + 2 || d + 757 < p) __builtin_abort (); } We don't optimize this

[Bug tree-optimization/77899] incorrect VR_RANGE for a signed char function argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77899 --- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor --- Yes, I've also come to realize that the surprising signed char range is a red herring since the abort in the following test case is also not optimized away. void f (_Bool i) { char d [3]; const char *p

[Bug target/77924] New: -mfloat128-type change broke AIX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77924 Bug ID: 77924 Summary: -mfloat128-type change broke AIX Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: critical Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug c++/64666] gcc wrongly accepts assignment in constant expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64666 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug tree-optimization/77898] incorrect VR_ANTI_RANGE after evrp and before vrp1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77898 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug tree-optimization/77824] unreachable code in SLSR GIMPLE pass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77824 --- Comment #7 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Mon Oct 10 18:39:41 2016 New Revision: 240945 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240945=gcc=rev Log: 2016-10-10 Bill Schmidt PR

[Bug c++/77923] GCC emits "declares nothing" diagnostic on meaningful declarations.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77923 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug c++/77890] class template type deduction fails for lambda functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77890 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug c++/64666] gcc wrongly accepts assignment in constant expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64666 --- Comment #7 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #6) > > but > > anyway, even with -std=c++14 -pedantic-errors, no message at all is given > > for the program in my earlier comment. > > I don't see the syntax

[Bug target/77924] -mfloat128-type change broke AIX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77924 Michael Meissner changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 CC|

[Bug target/77924] -mfloat128-type change broke AIX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77924 --- Comment #1 from Michael Meissner --- Created attachment 39784 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39784=edit Proposed patch to fix the problem This patch should only create the __ibm128 type when long double == IEEE and

[Bug c++/55004] [meta-bug] constexpr issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004 Bug 55004 depends on bug 55039, which changed state. Bug 55039 Summary: std::addressof vs. constexpr https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55039 What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/77899] incorrect VR_RANGE for a signed char function argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77899 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5) > My other point (one somewhat related to bug 77898) is that it's confusing to > represent the VR_RANGE [-128, 127] of the signed char variable as a > VR_ANTI_RANGE

[Bug tree-optimization/77899] incorrect VR_RANGE for a signed char function argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77899 --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- Here's what I see in GDB after get_range_info returns to update_value_range: (gdb) p rtype $39 = VR_ANTI_RANGE (gdb) p min $40 = { = {val = {128, 18061790, 140737235530016}, len = 1, precision = 64}, static

[Bug target/77924] -mfloat128-type change broke AIX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77924 Michael Meissner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/77899] incorrect VR_RANGE for a signed char function argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77899 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug tree-optimization/77899] incorrect VR_RANGE for a signed char function argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77899 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #7) > Here's what I see in GDB after get_range_info returns to update_value_range: > > (gdb) p rtype > $39 = VR_ANTI_RANGE > (gdb) p min > $40 = { = {val = {128,

[Bug c++/77912] [C++17 feature] class template deduction fails in template functions and generic lambdas

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77912 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/68752] PowerPC: vector reciprocal square root estimate missed optimisations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68752 --- Comment #3 from Carl Love --- I investigated the issue using GCC 6.1. The t1() function from file recip-vec-sqrtf.c file is as follows: void t1(void) { int i; for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) r[i] = a[i] / sqrtf (b[i]); } The assembly code being

[Bug tree-optimization/77898] incorrect VR_ANTI_RANGE after evrp and before vrp1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77898 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- I suppose I was expecting that that after EVRP (and before VRP1) get_range_info() would either succeed and return a range representing a subrange of the the variable's type or fail and return VR_VARYING. If

[Bug tree-optimization/71947] [6/7 Regression] x ^ y not folded to 0 if x == y by DOM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71947 --- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Mon Oct 10 20:40:59 2016 New Revision: 240947 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240947=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/71947 * tree-ssa-dom.c (cprop_into_stmt):

[Bug tree-optimization/77898] incorrect VR_ANTI_RANGE after evrp and before vrp1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77898 --- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6) > I meant a subrange of the i variable (i.e., a subrange of int). The range > of every variable is necessarily bounded by its type so returning a range of >

[Bug target/77924] -mfloat128-type change broke AIX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77924 --- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner --- Created attachment 39785 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39785=edit Revised proposed patch to fix the problem without syntax error

[Bug tree-optimization/71947] [6/7 Regression] x ^ y not folded to 0 if x == y by DOM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71947 --- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law --- So I don't like the pain of trying to fold at each propagation step. Specifically, the structure of the gimple statement can change, which invalidates the operand cache. And the canonicalization of

[Bug c++/77825] [7 Regression] return type deduction regression in C++17 mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77825 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/77898] incorrect VR_ANTI_RANGE after evrp and before vrp1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77898 --- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2) > I may also be confused about other things but below is what I see in GDB > when I call get_range_info() from plus_stmt_object_size() on the offset in >

[Bug tree-optimization/77898] incorrect VR_ANTI_RANGE after evrp and before vrp1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77898 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- I meant a subrange of the i variable (i.e., a subrange of int). The range of every variable is necessarily bounded by its type so returning a range of [INT_MIN, INT_MAX] for an int isn't terribly helpful.

[Bug target/68752] PowerPC: vector reciprocal square root estimate missed optimisations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68752 --- Comment #4 from Carl Love --- I do not seem to have permission to change the status of the bug. Anton, can you recheck the issue and close if you agree it is no longer an issue. Thanks. Carl

[Bug c++/77890] class template type deduction fails for lambda functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77890 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/64666] gcc wrongly accepts assignment in constant expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64666 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/77824] unreachable code in SLSR GIMPLE pass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77824 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/68752] PowerPC: vector reciprocal square root estimate missed optimisations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68752 Carl Love changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cel at us dot ibm.com --- Comment #2 from

[Bug c++/77912] [C++17 feature] class template deduction fails in template functions and generic lambdas

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77912 --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Mon Oct 10 20:48:51 2016 New Revision: 240948 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240948=gcc=rev Log: C++17 class deduction issues PR c++/77890 PR c++/77912 *

[Bug c++/77890] class template type deduction fails for lambda functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77890 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Mon Oct 10 20:48:51 2016 New Revision: 240948 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240948=gcc=rev Log: C++17 class deduction issues PR c++/77890 PR c++/77912 *

[Bug c++/77912] [C++17 feature] class template deduction fails in template functions and generic lambdas

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77912 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/77898] incorrect VR_ANTI_RANGE after evrp and before vrp1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77898 --- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4) > I suppose I was expecting that that after EVRP (and before VRP1) > get_range_info() would either succeed and return a range representing a > subrange of the the

[Bug c++/77927] unary right fold fails to compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77927 --- Comment #3 from Jeff Mirwaisi --- Apologies for the poor bug report, to clarify, unary right folds which use a binary operator in the fold parameter are failing to compile: ( (x op1 y) op2... ); //clearer examples - error: binary

[Bug target/77904] [ARM Cortex-M0] Frame pointer thrashes registers if assembly statements with "sp" clobber are used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77904 Thomas Preud'homme changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2016-10-10 CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/77899] incorrect VR_RANGE for a signed char function argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77899 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/77897] Compile error with KNL & -O3 for GTC code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77897 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/77901] ICE in tree-sse-reassoc,c:2881

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77901 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/77915] [6/7 Regression] Internal error for matmul() in forall with optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77915 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/77916] [6/7 Regression] ICE in verify_gimple_in_cfg: invalid (pointer) operands to plus/minus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77916 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.3 Known to fail|

[Bug rtl-optimization/60641] Converting ushort to offset on x86_64 generates double movzwl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60641 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |rtl-optimization --- Comment #3 from Uroš

[Bug c++/77914] Wrong lambda definition accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77914 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid CC|

[Bug c++/77914] Wrong lambda definition accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77914 --- Comment #3 from Michele Caini --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > Shall we remove that altogether, or just pedwarn on it? I suspect it should be rejected, unless it is an intended extension of the compiler (for which I've not

[Bug fortran/77915] New: Internal error for matmul() in forall with optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77915 Bug ID: 77915 Summary: Internal error for matmul() in forall with optimization Product: gcc Version: 6.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/77916] New: [6/7 Regression] ICE in verify_gimple_in_cfg: invalid (pointer) operands to plus/minus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77916 Bug ID: 77916 Summary: [6/7 Regression] ICE in verify_gimple_in_cfg: invalid (pointer) operands to plus/minus Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/77907] [6/7 Regression] Add "const" to argument of constexpr constructor causes the object to be left in unconstructed state

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77907 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.3

[Bug lto/77821] C++ binary size increase or LTO not working?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77821 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/77914] New: Wrong lambda definition accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77914 Bug ID: 77914 Summary: Wrong lambda definition accepted Product: gcc Version: 6.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/77912] [C++17 feature] class template deduction fails in template functions and generic lambdas

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77912 Jeff Mirwaisi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug go/77910] [7 Regression] go: open zversion.go: no such file or directory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77910 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.0

[Bug c++/77912] [C++17 feature] class template deduction fails in template functions and generic lambdas

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77912 --- Comment #4 from Jeff Mirwaisi --- //To clarify: template void f(T t){ S(t); } //deduction fails int main() { auto F=[]{}; //bug 77890 - fails S(F); //this should construct a temporary object deduced as type S //bug

[Bug c++/77896] Object vtable lookups are not hoisted out of loops

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77896 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/77914] Wrong lambda definition accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77914 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Seems the [](T x){return x}; syntax has been part of N3418 but N3559 changed the proposal to only support auto arguments.

[Bug c++/77890] class template type deduction fails for lambda functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77890 --- Comment #3 from Jeff Mirwaisi --- Bug 77912 is not a duplicate of this bug (77890), please see 77912 for details, unless 77890 is to be used as a general bug for all class template type deduction issues - if not Vittorio Romeo's example of

[Bug tree-optimization/77898] VR_RANGE with inverted bounds after evrp and before vrp1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77898 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/77916] [6/7 Regression] ICE in verify_gimple_in_cfg: invalid (pointer) operands to plus/minus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77916 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added Target||aarch64*-*-*

[Bug middle-end/77926] New: Add __builtin_iszero

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77926 Bug ID: 77926 Summary: Add __builtin_iszero Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: middle-end

[Bug tree-optimization/77898] incorrect VR_ANTI_RANGE after evrp and before vrp1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77898 --- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor --- No, I get the range for _2 with a "def_stmt _2 = (sizetype) i_4;" i.0_1: [0, +INF] _2: ~[2147483648, 18446744071562067967] _3: [0, +INF] i_4: VARYING i_6(D): VARYING ... # i_4 = PHI _2

[Bug c++/77927] New: unary right fold fails to compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77927 Bug ID: 77927 Summary: unary right fold fails to compile Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/77927] unary right fold fails to compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77927 --- Comment #1 from Jeff Mirwaisi --- //unary right fold fails to compile template void f(){int A[]={(((void)N,int()),...)};} //corresponding left fold works as expected template void f(){int A[]={(...,((void)N,int()))};} //both are simple

[Bug tree-optimization/77424] Identical statements in if-else branches

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77424 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com

[Bug tree-optimization/77902] Auto-vectorizes epilogue loops of manually vectorized functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77902 --- Comment #1 from Allan Jensen --- Further experimentation shows that GCC can sometimes reason about the remaining range but does so inconsistenly. For instance this examplse also fails: int result = 0; for (; count >= 4; count -= 4)

[Bug middle-end/77925] New: Add __builtin_issubnormal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77925 Bug ID: 77925 Summary: Add __builtin_issubnormal Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end

[Bug bootstrap/77917] undefined reference to '__aeabi_unwind_cpp_pr0' during ARM bootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77917 --- Comment #3 from PeteVine --- Unfortunately, even with `--with-build-config=bootstrap-lto` the result was unchanged which makes the issue real after all? Unsurprisingly, eliminating just the `-flto` flag (-flto=4 to be exact) led to a

[Bug middle-end/77925] Add __builtin_issubnormal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77925 Joseph S. Myers changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug tree-optimization/77921] [7 Regression] tree-ssanames.c miscompiled during PGO bootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77921 --- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to kugan from comment #4) > Sorry about the breakage. I will try to reproduce it. > > (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1) > > gcc version 7.0.0 20161007 was fine > Are you

[Bug c++/77927] unary right fold fails to compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77927 --- Comment #2 from Jeff Mirwaisi --- //error: binary expression in operand of fold-expression

[Bug tree-optimization/77902] Auto-vectorizes epilogue loops of manually vectorized functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77902 --- Comment #2 from Allan Jensen --- While this have been the case in both GCC 5 and GCC 6, it appears to both failing cases previously meantioned already produced the best case result in using a half recent GCC 7. gcc version 7.0.0 20160923

[Bug middle-end/77928] New: Add __builtin_iseqsig

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77928 Bug ID: 77928 Summary: Add __builtin_iseqsig Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: middle-end

[Bug target/77586] [7 Regression] ia64 target fails to build due to ICE triggered by -fself-test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77586 Joseph S. Myers changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/77586] [7 Regression] ia64 target fails to build due to ICE triggered by -fself-test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77586 --- Comment #3 from Joseph S. Myers --- Author: jsm28 Date: Mon Oct 10 22:43:07 2016 New Revision: 240955 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240955=gcc=rev Log: Always support float128 on ia64 (PR target/77586). Bug 77586, and previously

[Bug tree-optimization/77921] [7 Regression] tree-ssanames.c miscompiled during PGO bootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77921 --- Comment #4 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org --- Sorry about the breakage. I will try to reproduce it. (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1) > gcc version 7.0.0 20161007 was fine Are you saying that this is issue is gone latent?

[Bug tree-optimization/77929] New: [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: non-trivial conversion at assignment)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77929 Bug ID: 77929 Summary: [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: non-trivial conversion at assignment) Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/77930] New: Compile time hog w/ -O2 -g -funroll-loops -ftree-loop-if-convert-stores on 32-bit targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77930 Bug ID: 77930 Summary: Compile time hog w/ -O2 -g -funroll-loops -ftree-loop-if-convert-stores on 32-bit targets Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug go/77910] [7 Regression] go: open zversion.go: no such file or directory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77910 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/77916] [6/7 Regression] ICE in verify_gimple_in_cfg: invalid (pointer) operands to plus/minus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77916 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug bootstrap/77917] New: undefined reference to '__aeabi_unwind_cpp_pr0' during ARM bootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77917 Bug ID: 77917 Summary: undefined reference to '__aeabi_unwind_cpp_pr0' during ARM bootstrap Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/77922] New: Bogus suggestion: ‘constexpr’ does not name a type; did you mean ‘constexpr’?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77922 Bug ID: 77922 Summary: Bogus suggestion: ‘constexpr’ does not name a type; did you mean ‘constexpr’? Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/77922] Bogus suggestion: ‘constexpr’ does not name a type; did you mean ‘constexpr’?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77922 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- A similar thing happens with other C++11 keywords: bad.cc:1:1: warning: identifier ‘decltype’ is a keyword in C++11 [-Wc++11-compat] decltype i = 0; ^~~~ bad.cc:1:1: error: ‘decltype’ does not name

[Bug c++/77922] Bogus suggestion: ‘constexpr’ does not name a type; did you mean ‘constexpr’?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77922 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0) > pr.C:1:1: note: C++11 ‘constexpr’ only available with -std=c++11 or > -std=gnu++11 Also this note isn't true, because it's also available with -std=gnu++14,

  1   2   >