[Bug target/79144] cmpstrnsi optimization breaks glibc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79144 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/79129] [7 Regression] ICE with -fdebug-types-section starting with r240578

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79129 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 CC|

[Bug target/79145] iwmmxt: Internal compiler error caused by an unrecognizable insn, during XORing long long with a char constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79145 --- Comment #3 from Petr Cvek --- Cmdline is of course: arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi-gcc -mcpu=iwmmxt ./z32.c

[Bug rtl-optimization/72488] [7 Regression] wrong code (SIGFPE) at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu (in the 64-bit mode)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72488 --- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law --- We have two different SSA_NAMEs where their SSA_NAME_INFO is the same pointer. Thus modification range info by way of set_range_info changes the underlying range on both SSA_NAMEs. From a debugging

[Bug target/79145] iwmmxt: Internal compiler error caused by an unrecognizable insn, during XORing long long with a char constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79145 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||iwmmxt Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/79143] [7 Regression][new inheriting constructors] inheriting constructor fails with brace initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79143 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/79145] iwmmxt: Internal compiler error caused by an unrecognizable insn, during XORing long long with a char constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79145 Petr Cvek changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |6.3.0 Known to fail|

[Bug target/78478] Compile Error for i386-rtems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78478 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/72488] [7 Regression] wrong code (SIGFPE) at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu (in the 64-bit mode)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72488 --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener --- Ah. Setting value number of t34_9752(D) to t34_9752(D) (changed) Setting value number of t42_9760(D) to t42_9760(D) (changed) WARNING: Giving up with SCCVN due to SCC size 10003 exceeding 1 so we're

[Bug target/79145] New: iwmmxt: Internal compiler error caused by an unrecognizable insn, during XORing long long with a char constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79145 Bug ID: 79145 Summary: iwmmxt: Internal compiler error caused by an unrecognizable insn, during XORing long long with a char constant Product: gcc Version:

[Bug libstdc++/79141] [6/7 Regression] std::pair<int,int> p = {}; fails to compile due to ambiguous overload

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79141 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Target Milestone|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/72488] [7 Regression] wrong code (SIGFPE) at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu (in the 64-bit mode)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72488 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #12 from Richard

[Bug rtl-optimization/79121] [6/7 Regression] invalid expansion of sign-extend unsigned plus left shift

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79121 --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw --- Author: rearnsha Date: Thu Jan 19 10:35:38 2017 New Revision: 244613 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244613=gcc=rev Log: [expand] Fix for PR rtl-optimization/79121 incorrect expansion of extend

[Bug rtl-optimization/79121] [6 Regression] invalid expansion of sign-extend unsigned plus left shift

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79121 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Version|7.0 |6.0 Summary|[6/7

[Bug c++/79118] [7 Regression] internal compiler error: in cxx_eval_bit_field_ref, at cp/constexpr.c:2258

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79118 --- Comment #8 from Niall Douglas --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #7) > I'm giving up; there's just too much C++. Thanks for looking into it. You should know that the above code works without issue on clang and VS2017 (with C++ 14

[Bug target/77346] [7 Regression] ICE in push_reload, at reload.c:1350

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77346 --- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #12) > It does raise the question of how long we're going to support -mno-lra on > PPC. The plan is to remove it in GCC 8.

[Bug ipa/65654] [8 Regression] 447.dealII in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to build with LTO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65654 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|7.0 |8.0 Summary|[7 Regression]

[Bug c++/79138] ICE when trying to do template auto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79138 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug lto/78407] [5/6/7 Regression] LTO breaks separate overriding of symbol aliases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78407 --- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka --- Author: hubicka Date: Thu Jan 19 10:00:56 2017 New Revision: 244612 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244612=gcc=rev Log: PR lto/78407 * symtab.c (symtab_node::equal_address_to): Fix

[Bug ipa/70582] [6/7 regression] gcc.dg/attr-weakref-1.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70582 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug target/79145] [5/6/7 Regression] iwmmxt: Internal compiler error caused by an unrecognizable insn, during XORing long long with a char constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79145 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

[Bug lto/78140] [7 Regression] libxul -flto uses 1GB more memory than gcc-6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78140 --- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka --- How does the memory use look with current tree?

[Bug target/79127] [7 Regression] Error: invalid register for .seh_savexmm in matmul_i4.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79127 --- Comment #13 from Rainer Emrich --- The proposed patch indeed fixes the issue on x86_64-w64-mingw32, libgfortran builds again. The results of a complete testsuite run can be found here:

[Bug c++/79129] [7 Regression] ICE with -fdebug-types-section starting with r240578

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79129 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/77484] [6/7 Regression] Static branch predictor causes ~6-8% regression of SPEC2000 GAP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77484 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/78580] [6 Regression] Segfault in gcc with multilib (-m32) and -ffixed-*

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78580 bugs-gcc at rationality dot eu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/69376] [6 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69376 Bug 69376 depends on bug 72488, which changed state. Bug 72488 Summary: [7 Regression] wrong code (SIGFPE) at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu (in the 64-bit mode) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72488 What|Removed

[Bug rtl-optimization/72488] [7 Regression] wrong code (SIGFPE) at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu (in the 64-bit mode)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72488 --- Comment #15 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Jan 19 12:02:43 2017 New Revision: 244625 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244625=gcc=rev Log: 2017-01-19 Richard Biener PR

[Bug rtl-optimization/72488] [7 Regression] wrong code (SIGFPE) at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu (in the 64-bit mode)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72488 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/78495] [7 regression][new inheriting ctors] variant members lead to uninitialized parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78495 --- Comment #2 from Nathan Sidwell --- Created attachment 40543 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40543=edit reduced testcase The problem is not with unnamed union members, but with inheriting ctors passing by value. The

[Bug other/79046] g++ -print-file-name=plugin uses full version number in path

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79046 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Jan 19 12:23:00 2017 New Revision: 244627 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244627=gcc=rev Log: PR other/79046 * aclocal.m4: Include ../config/acx.m4. *

[Bug lto/78140] [7 Regression] libxul -flto uses 1GB more memory than gcc-6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78140 --- Comment #17 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 40544 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40544=edit GCC 6 graph

[Bug lto/78140] [7 Regression] libxul -flto uses 1GB more memory than gcc-6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78140 --- Comment #18 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 40545 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40545=edit GCC 7 graph

[Bug rtl-optimization/72488] [7 Regression] wrong code (SIGFPE) at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu (in the 64-bit mode)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72488 --- Comment #14 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Jan 19 12:00:42 2017 New Revision: 244623 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244623=gcc=rev Log: 2017-01-19 Richard Biener PR

[Bug lto/78140] [7 Regression] libxul -flto uses 1GB more memory than gcc-6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78140 --- Comment #16 from Martin Liška --- It's still reproducible with current trunk, it's over 1GB on my development machine. I did a simple script that dumps sizes of all LTO object loaded to WPA: GCC 7: asm : 19.67 KB profile

[Bug target/79145] [5/6/7 Regression] iwmmxt: Internal compiler error caused by an unrecognizable insn, during XORing long long with a char constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79145 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug lto/78140] [7 Regression] libxul -flto uses 1GB more memory than gcc-6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78140 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kuganv at linaro dot org --- Comment #19

[Bug rtl-optimization/79125] [7 Regression] ICE in rtl_verify_bb_insns, at cfgrtl.c:2661 (error: flow control insn inside a basic block)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79125 Bernd Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bernds at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug go/79146] New: Bootstrpping go on s390x fails; redefined symbols

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79146 Bug ID: 79146 Summary: Bootstrpping go on s390x fails; redefined symbols Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug middle-end/77484] [6/7 Regression] Static branch predictor causes ~6-8% regression of SPEC2000 GAP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77484 --- Comment #33 from wilco at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #32) > Apparently fixed. The coremark is PR77445 Yes, my SPEC2006 results look good, no real change. Coremark is now up by 20% or more, thanks for that :-)

[Bug tree-optimization/77445] [7 Regression] Performance drop after r239219 on coremark test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77445 --- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka --- As reported in PR77484, coremark is now up by 20% or more. Are we out of regression land now? If not does the patch in #15 help?

[Bug libstdc++/79147] Uselsss _GLIBCXX_PACKAGE_* macros in

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79147 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug lto/78140] [7 Regression] libxul -flto uses 1GB more memory than gcc-6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78140 --- Comment #20 from Richard Biener --- Look at tree-ssanames.c:range_info_def for "tricks" (make them variable size): /* Value range information for SSA_NAMEs representing non-pointer variables. */ struct GTY ((variable_size)) range_info_def

[Bug middle-end/44440] [5/6/7 regression] ira_initialization and buitins construction taking too much of startup time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0 --- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka --- Now I get (for 500 invocations) real user sys GCC 7:0m9.816s 0m6.274s 0m3.546s GCC 6:0m7.880s 0m4.253s 0m3.605s GCC 5:0m7.655s 0m4.264s 0m3.159s GCC 4.6:

[Bug c++/79130] [C++17] FI20 change vs. direct initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79130 --- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Thu Jan 19 14:37:51 2017 New Revision: 244635 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244635=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/79130 - decomposition and direct-initialization * init.c

[Bug ipa/71190] [7 Regression] ICE in assemble_variable_contents, at varasm.c:2054

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71190 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug libstdc++/79147] New: Uselsss _GLIBCXX_PACKAGE_* macros in

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79147 Bug ID: 79147 Summary: Uselsss _GLIBCXX_PACKAGE_* macros in Product: gcc Version: 6.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug go/79146] [7 Regression] Bootstrapping go on s390x fails; redefined symbols

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79146 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||build Target Milestone|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/79148] New: stack addresses are spilled to stack slots on x86-64 at -Os instead of rematerializing the addresses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79148 Bug ID: 79148 Summary: stack addresses are spilled to stack slots on x86-64 at -Os instead of rematerializing the addresses Product: gcc Version: unknown Status:

[Bug target/78900] ICE in gcc.target/powerpc/signbit-3.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78900 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/79149] New: bad optimization on MIPS and ARM leading to excessive stack usage in some cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79149 Bug ID: 79149 Summary: bad optimization on MIPS and ARM leading to excessive stack usage in some cases Product: gcc Version: 4.9.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/71648] C++ ICE on ppc64 with -m64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71648 --- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt --- This appears to be fixed on trunk -- between David and me we've tested this on AIX 32- and 64-bit, PPC64LE on P8, and PPC64 on P7. We'll need to bisect and see what fixed the problem and work on a backport

[Bug tree-optimization/71264] [5 Regression] ICE in convert_move

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71264 --- Comment #23 from Rainer Orth --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #22) > On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71264 > > > > --- Comment #21 from Eric

[Bug lto/78140] [7 Regression] libxul -flto uses 1GB more memory than gcc-6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78140 --- Comment #25 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 40549 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40549=edit GCC 7 -fmem-report

[Bug target/71648] C++ ICE on ppc64 with -m64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71648 --- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt --- This actually appears to be fixed in GCC 6 as well, so the fix must have been backported. Konstantinos, can you please try with GCC 6.3 and confirm that the problem goes away for you? Thanks, Bill

[Bug target/78478] Compile Error for i386-rtems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78478 --- Comment #24 from Joel Sherrill --- Would you mind applying this to the 6.x branch? That was where the issue was initially spotted. I don't know what to do about this extra line in rtemself.h though. It was not present in the master

[Bug preprocessor/69543] [6/7 Regression] _Pragma does not apply within macro

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69543 --- Comment #11 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #10) > The lines in comment #9 came from 18f0e0e551a995687e1822aabb9b7d7ee8f11492 > aka r186971 (affecting gcc.dg/cpp/pragma-diagnostic-2.c) This was: "[PATCH

[Bug libstdc++/67085] priority queue should not copy comparators when calling push_heap and pop_heap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67085 --- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Jan 19 23:07:52 2017 New Revision: 244656 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244656=gcc=rev Log: PR67085 pass comparison functions by reference in heap algorithms PR

[Bug libstdc++/51965] Redundant move constructions in heap algorithms

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51965 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2012-01-24 00:00:00 |2017-1-19 Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/79144] cmpstrnsi optimization breaks glibc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79144 --- Comment #3 from Alan Modra --- Author: amodra Date: Thu Jan 19 23:19:19 2017 New Revision: 244659 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244659=gcc=rev Log: [RS6000] PR79144, cmpstrnsi optimization breaks glibc glibc compiled with current

[Bug target/69992] test case gcc.dg/sms-4.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69992 acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last

[Bug target/79160] gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-elemrev-4.c fails on powerpc BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79160 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target||powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu

[Bug testsuite/68972] g++.dg/cpp1y/vla-initlist1.C test case fails on powerpc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68972 --- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt --- The test has gone back to not failing anymore at some point: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2017-01/msg01932.html I don't know why.

[Bug target/69992] test case gcc.dg/sms-4.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69992 --- Comment #1 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org --- At some point the doloop analysis must have changed and as a result declared that the loop might run infinitely if compiled with -m64. This in turn causes SMS to bail out and the test fails. The

[Bug c/69558] [6/7 Regression] glib2 warning pragmas stopped working

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69558 --- Comment #17 from David Malcolm --- Remaining XFAILs for this bug: c-c++-common/pr69558.c (C++ only)

[Bug target/79160] New: gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-elemrev-4.c fails on powerpc BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79160 Bug ID: 79160 Summary: gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-elemrev-4.c fails on powerpc BE Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/78478] Compile Error for i386-rtems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78478 --- Comment #25 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Joel Sherrill from comment #24) > Would you mind applying this to the 6.x branch? That was where the issue was > initially spotted. Sure, but let's wait for a week if everything works OK in the

[Bug libstdc++/67085] priority queue should not copy comparators when calling push_heap and pop_heap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67085 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/62161] more precise locations for command-line diagnostics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62161 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c/79049] Unknown escape sequence not correctly pointed out

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79049 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/79153] New: -Wimplicit-fallthrough missed warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79153 Bug ID: 79153 Summary: -Wimplicit-fallthrough missed warning Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c++/61636] generic lambda: segfault / "cannot call member function without object"

Smith. > Nice. Your [much cleaner] patch sorts out the starred case above too. With GCC master (7.0.0 20170119) with your patch the results are: auto l0 = [&](auto z) { f (z); };// C:8 G:1 G':8 G'':8 auto l1 = [&](auto) { f (2.4); };// C:8 G:1 G':8 G'':1 * fixed :) auto l

[Bug fortran/79154] omp declare simd in pure function?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79154 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/79151] New: Missed vectorization with identical formulas

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79151 Bug ID: 79151 Summary: Missed vectorization with identical formulas Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3

[Bug c++/79130] [C++17] FI20 change vs. direct initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79130 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/79082] -Wformat-truncation inconsistent behaviour

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79082 --- Comment #4 from Franz Sirl --- Hmm, %hhd is not usable on some of our platforms and also only really helpful with exact %x outputs: snprintf(buffer, 3, "%02hhx", val); What about: snprintf(buffer, 4, "%03hx", val & 0xfff); Here the

[Bug preprocessor/69543] [6/7 Regression] _Pragma does not apply within macro

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69543 --- Comment #9 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #8) > The following testcases still have xfails: > c-c++-common/pr69543-3.c > c-c++-common/pr69543-4.c > so this isn't quite fixed yet. These XFAILs are fixed

[Bug c++/79159] New: [7 regression] spurious array-bounds warning

++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: s...@li-snyder.org Target Milestone: --- hi - gcc version 7.0.0 20170119 gives what appears to be a spurious warning for this example when compiling with -O3 (tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

[Bug preprocessor/69543] [6/7 Regression] _Pragma does not apply within macro

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69543 --- Comment #10 from David Malcolm --- The lines in comment #9 came from 18f0e0e551a995687e1822aabb9b7d7ee8f11492 aka r186971 (affecting gcc.dg/cpp/pragma-diagnostic-2.c)

[Bug libstdc++/67085] priority queue should not copy comparators when calling push_heap and pop_heap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67085 --- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Jan 19 18:26:41 2017 New Revision: 244648 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244648=gcc=rev Log: PR67085 move comparison functions in heap operations PR libstdc++/67085

[Bug target/79158] New: gcc.target/powerpc/pr70669.c fails on powerpc BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79158 Bug ID: 79158 Summary: gcc.target/powerpc/pr70669.c fails on powerpc BE Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/78478] Compile Error for i386-rtems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78478 --- Comment #23 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Thu Jan 19 21:38:44 2017 New Revision: 244653 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244653=gcc=rev Log: PR target/78478 Revert: 2013-11-05 Uros Bizjak

[Bug c/79082] -Wformat-truncation inconsistent behaviour

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79082 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- I see no warning at -O0 on snprintf (buffer, 4, "%03hx", val & 0xfff); or at -O2 on: snprintf (buffer, 3, "%2d", (val < 0) ? -(val % 100) : val % 100); (It does warn at -O0 as expected.) This is on

[Bug target/79155] New: Typo in cpuid.h comment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79155 Bug ID: 79155 Summary: Typo in cpuid.h comment Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee:

[Bug libstdc++/78905] Add a macro to determine that the library is implemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78905 --- Comment #9 from Matt Clarkson --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7) > GCC 7 now defines _GLIBCXX_RELEASE (with the same value as __GNUC__ has, > i.e. the GCC major version, as an integer constant, but defined by the > library

[Bug libstdc++/67085] priority queue should not copy comparators when calling push_heap and pop_heap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67085 --- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Jan 19 20:29:07 2017 New Revision: 244650 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244650=gcc=rev Log: Fix unsafe moves inside loops PR libstdc++/67085 *

[Bug libstdc++/79156] New: incorrect c++ usage in gcc7 void function returns a value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79156 Bug ID: 79156 Summary: incorrect c++ usage in gcc7 void function returns a value Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/79156] incorrect c++ usage in gcc7 void function returns a value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79156 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/79156] incorrect c++ usage in gcc7 void function returns a value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79156 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to mib.bugzilla from comment #0) > Changing "friend void" to "friend auto" would be a simple fix. That wouldn't compile in C++11 mode. I think shouldn't return anything.

[Bug target/78478] Compile Error for i386-rtems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78478 --- Comment #22 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Thu Jan 19 21:00:53 2017 New Revision: 244651 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244651=gcc=rev Log: PR target/78478 * config/ax_check_define.m4: New file.

[Bug fortran/79157] New: gfortran crashed on sparc with openmpi build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79157 Bug ID: 79157 Summary: gfortran crashed on sparc with openmpi build Product: gcc Version: 5.4.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug testsuite/63256] [5/6/7 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/sms-8.c scan-rtl-dump-times sms "SMS succeeded" 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63256 --- Comment #10 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org --- Looking at this again. Present state of play is: sms-4.c fails with -m64 BE and LE sms-8.c fails with -m32 BE

[Bug preprocessor/69543] [6/7 Regression] _Pragma does not apply within macro

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69543 --- Comment #8 from David Malcolm --- The following testcases still have xfails: c-c++-common/pr69543-3.c c-c++-common/pr69543-4.c so this isn't quite fixed yet.

[Bug libstdc++/79156] incorrect c++ usage in gcc7 void function returns a value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79156 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Status|NEW

[Bug target/77333] Incorrect stack adjust in epilogue when targeting i686-w64-mingw32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77333 --- Comment #9 from Tony Kelman --- How can we help get this moving towards resolution? This has kept us stuck on GCC 4.9, which is getting increasingly problematic. We can attempt to reduce this to "minimal working piece of opt.exe with gcc

[Bug libstdc++/64903] is_partitioned should not apply a predicate more than (last - first) times

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64903 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Jan 19 23:30:18 2017 New Revision: 244661 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244661=gcc=rev Log: PR64903 fix number of predicate tests in std::is_partitioned PR

[Bug target/78875] -fstack-protector on powerpc64 now always use TLS, won't work for kernel/firmware

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78875 --- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool --- Author: segher Date: Fri Jan 20 01:22:27 2017 New Revision: 244677 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244677=gcc=rev Log: rs6000: Fix the new SSP guard configuration code (PR79140) I foolishly

[Bug libstdc++/69321] Error on use of non-copyable type with any_cast

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69321 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Status|NEW

[Bug c++/79091] [7 regression] ICE in write_unnamed_type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79091 --- Comment #7 from scott snyder --- Confirmed that this fixes the original problem from which the test case was derived. Thanks!

[Bug c++/64382] ICE due to use of `this` inside a lambda that captures everything by ref inside a member function of a class template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64382 Adam Butcher changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED Resolution|DUPLICATE

  1   2   >