[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #50 from Alexandre Oliva --- Author: aoliva Date: Wed Dec 13 19:09:45 2017 New Revision: 255612 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255612=gcc=rev Log: [SFN] don't eliminate regs in markers Eliminate regs in debug bind insns, but

[Bug tree-optimization/83410] [8 regression] libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-4.c etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83410 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law

[Bug target/83405] [8 Regression] bootstrap fails building a hppa64 compiler using gcc-8 trunk

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83405 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.0

[Bug c++/83406] [8 Regression] GCC8 can't deduce lambda return type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83406 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.0

[Bug c/83407] Warn about unsigned size_t underflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83407 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- overflow/underflow for unsigned integer type is well-defined in C so I'm not sure how we could warn without warning about legit code.

[Bug c++/80026] [6/7/8 Regression] passing unresolved function pointer to variadic function template yields "too many arguments" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80026 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug rtl-optimization/83398] [8 Regression] ICE: in try_ready, at haifa-sched.c:7524 with -O2 -fsched2-use-superblocks -g

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83398 --- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka --- Created attachment 42871 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42871=edit reduced testcase

[Bug fortran/83076] [8 Regression] ICE in gfc_deallocate_scalar_with_status, at fortran/trans.c:1598

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83076 --- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas --- (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #8) > (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #7) > > With the patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-11/msg00171.html the > > number of > > > > internal

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #47 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 42873 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42873=edit gcc8-pr83396-ia64.patch So what about this for the ia64 issue? Rather than trying to force sanity into the ia64

[Bug c++/83413] that's a compiler bug, not something we can address. MAME is known to be buildable for other ARM targets (e.g. Raspberry Pi) right now so it appears to be an issue with whatever you're

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83413 Alexander Perfeito changed: What|Removed |Added Target||NVidia ARM Tegra TK1

[Bug middle-end/83373] False positive reported by -Wstringop-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83373 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "I cannot reorder fields or add a new one at the end to silence this warning." The patch doesn't rely on any particular ordering of data members to suppress warnings.

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #49 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Dec 13 18:47:45 2017 New Revision: 255610 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255610=gcc=rev Log: PR bootstrap/83396 * final.c (rest_of_handle_final): Call

[Bug c/83407] Warn about unsigned size_t underflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83407 --- Comment #5 from Jonny Grant --- I appreciate that people rely on this behavour, we found in code reviews various bugs. It is more a question of how to detect underflow, without running the program. It is often the case in C++ STL code we

[Bug middle-end/83415] New: ICE during gimplification of assignment to read-only vector

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83415 Bug ID: 83415 Summary: ICE during gimplification of assignment to read-only vector Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/52377] C++11 non-static initializers in unions are not used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52377 dmitry.v.rogozhkin at intel dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmitry.v.rogozhkin

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #51 from Andreas Schwab --- The try_ready ICE from #c45 is still present with the patch from #c47.

[Bug c++/52377] C++11 non-static initializers in unions are not used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52377 --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to dmitry.v.rogozhkin from comment #5) > May I have additional information on this bug, please: > 1. What was the patch which fixed the bug? r199455 > 2. The noted behavior to have 0 values for

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #52 from Andreas Schwab --- In fact, both ICEs are still present, so #c47 isn't any better.

[Bug c++/81061] [7 Regression] ICE modifying read-only variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81061 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[7/8 Regression] ICE|[7 Regression] ICE

[Bug c/83407] Warn about unsigned size_t underflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83407 --- Comment #7 from Jonny Grant --- As the compiler knows size_t returned by vec.size() is unsigned, it could warn that the code should have a sanity check as it is size_t. It is the same when code checks for UINT_MAX to avoid similar issues...

[Bug tree-optimization/83410] [8 regression] libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-4.c etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83410 --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Not failing for me. Oh wait. This depends on graphite? I don't typically build with graphite. Let me restart...

[Bug target/80837] [7/8 regression] x86 accessing a member of a 16-byte atomic object generates terrible code: splitting/merging the bytes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80837 --- Comment #5 from Peter Cordes --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > Can't reproduce. It is true that we now emit the __atomic_load_16 call, but > that was intentional change Yup. >, and it can't be easily tail call, because the

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #48 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Dec 13 18:46:43 2017 New Revision: 255609 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255609=gcc=rev Log: PR bootstrap/83396 PR debug/83391 * tree-cfgcleanup.c

[Bug debug/83391] [8 Regression] error: definition in block 9 does not dominate use in block 8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83391 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Dec 13 18:46:43 2017 New Revision: 255609 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255609=gcc=rev Log: PR bootstrap/83396 PR debug/83391 * tree-cfgcleanup.c

[Bug c++/81762] errors defining attribute target overloads of the same function template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81762 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/81276] Function multiversioning doesn't work with C++ templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81276 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug middle-end/83373] False positive reported by -Wstringop-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83373 --- Comment #6 from Daniel Fruzynski --- My understanding is that after this patch will be applied, gcc will still emit warning for last field in struct, e.g. like in code below. Is my understanding correct or I

[Bug middle-end/83373] False positive reported by -Wstringop-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83373 --- Comment #7 from Daniel Fruzynski --- In my case structures like Msg above are generated from IDL files together with code for serialization and deserialization. Because of this I cannot freely move or add

[Bug c/46921] Dropped side effect with combination of statement expression and struct initializer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46921 Dave Pagan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dave.pagan at oracle dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/52377] C++11 non-static initializers in unions are not used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52377 --- Comment #7 from dmitry.v.rogozhkin at intel dot com --- >> 2. The noted behavior to have 0 values for union members with -O: is that >> permanent behavior or we can randomly get non-zero values >If the member is initialized, we should get the

[Bug c++/83414] New: Successive calls to "new" return the same pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83414 Bug ID: 83414 Summary: Successive calls to "new" return the same pointer Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c/83407] Warn about unsigned size_t underflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83407 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #5) > printf("vec size minus header: %zu", vec.size() -1); Even if there was a warning about unsigned wraparound (N.B. not "underflow" which means something

[Bug target/82190] Possibly latent miscompilation issue on ppc64le-linux-gnu for memcpy-bi.c with -fweb -fno-optimize-strlen

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82190 acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug c++/83413] that's a compiler bug, not something we can address. MAME is known to be buildable for other ARM targets (e.g. Raspberry Pi) right now so it appears to be an issue with whatever you're

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83413 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #54 from Andreas Schwab --- Yes, just the patch from #c47 on top of master.

[Bug libstdc++/83279] std::experimental::filesystem::copy_file can't copy larger files than 2.0GiB

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83279 --- Comment #7 from T B --- Have you already tried it out?

[Bug tree-optimization/83253] -ftree-slsr causes performance regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253 --- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt --- Revised patch: Index: gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c === --- gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #55 from Jakub Jelinek --- Ok. Can you please attach preprocessed source + gcc options that shows the two ICEs? Alex, can you please have a look?

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #30 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 42865 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42865=edit gcc8-pr83396.patch Untested patch for the IA64 ICE.

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #28) > Reduced testcase for #c27: > > int f1 (int); > int f2 (int); > int > foo (int f) > { > return f1 (f) || f2 (f) != 0; > } This is IMNSHO a bug in the ia64

[Bug c++/78955] [c++ concepts] Concept requirements on functions cancels the private section method check in the following code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78955 Nikodim Semgin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nikosemga at mail dot ru --- Comment

[Bug fortran/83416] New: [8 Regression] Invalid rejection of association of contiguous pointer to a target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83416 Bug ID: 83416 Summary: [8 Regression] Invalid rejection of association of contiguous pointer to a target Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/83416] [8 Regression] Invalid rejection of association of contiguous pointer to a target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83416 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid

[Bug fortran/83416] [8 Regression] Invalid rejection of association of contiguous pointer to a target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83416 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/83373] False positive reported by -Wstringop-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83373 --- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor --- GCC treats the last member array of a [sub]object as a flexible array member only if it doesn't know the size of the whole object (the subobject can be a member of a larger struct or an element of an array).

[Bug fortran/83416] [8 Regression] Invalid rejection of association of contiguous pointer to a target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83416 --- Comment #1 from Harald Anlauf --- The code is accepted without comment by Crayftn 8.6.4 and Intel v17 & v18.

[Bug middle-end/83373] False positive reported by -Wstringop-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83373 --- Comment #9 from Daniel Fruzynski --- Thanks for explanation. In addition to allocation on stack, my app also uses custom allocator function like below. So in this case it also should work as expected. void*

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #56 from Andreas Schwab --- Created attachment 42877 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42877=edit c-typeck.ii ./xg++ -B./ -fno-PIE -S -g -O2 -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti

[Bug c++/83417] New: Pointer-to-member template parameter with auto member type dependent container type does not work (C++17)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83417 Bug ID: 83417 Summary: Pointer-to-member template parameter with auto member type dependent container type does not work (C++17) Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status:

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #57 from Andreas Schwab --- Created attachment 42878 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42878=edit c-warn.ii ./xg++ -B./ -fno-PIE -S -g -O2 -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #53 from Jakub Jelinek --- Have you reverted the ia64.c change from the earlier patch? I.e. testing just latest trunk (other patches are in) + #c47?

[Bug c++/81061] [7/8 Regression] ICE modifying read-only variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81061 --- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Wed Dec 13 20:29:11 2017 New Revision: 255613 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255613=gcc=rev Log: /cp 2017-12-13 Paolo Carlini PR

[Bug tree-optimization/83253] -ftree-slsr causes performance regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253 --- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt --- I was able to build an i386 cross, and this wasn't sufficient to solve the problem. I see: Processing dependency tree rooted at 1. Inserting initializer: slsr_10 = scale_7(D) * 3; Increment vector: 0

<    1   2