[Bug c++/83482] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83482 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Tue Dec 19 11:12:35 2017 New Revision: 255817 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255817=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/83482 * g++.dg/torture/pr83482.C: New test.

[Bug rtl-optimization/83475] [8 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed (error: non-cold basic block 3 reachable only by paths crossing the cold partition)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83475 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.0

[Bug target/83485] New: cris: ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2311

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83485 Bug ID: 83485 Summary: cris: ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2311 Product: gcc Version: 7.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/83368] alloca after setjmp breaks PIC base reg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368 --- Comment #10 from James Clarke --- (In reply to James Clarke from comment #9) > (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #7) > > > And for what it's worth, 32-bit Solaris/SPARC's setjmp isn't saving any of > > > the caller's input or local

[Bug target/83488] New: [8 Regression] ICE on a CET test-case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83488 Bug ID: 83488 Summary: [8 Regression] ICE on a CET test-case Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug c++/83489] [8 Regression] ICE in init_cumulative_args, at config/i386/i386.c:7223

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83489 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/83479] Register spilling in AVX code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479 --- Comment #5 from Daniel Fruzynski --- Here is also valid AVX version, it also spills a bit. Compiled with "-O3 -march=haswell -Wall -Werror". [code] #include "immintrin.h" double test(const double

[Bug target/83368] alloca after setjmp breaks PIC base reg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|NEW Resolution|WONTFIX

[Bug target/83479] Register spilling in AVX code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479 --- Comment #6 from Daniel Fruzynski --- One correction: In c#4 line 17 has incorrect index, should be 8 instead of 9. For some reason gcc did not complain here. vLastRow = _mm512_load_pd ([8][0]);

[Bug c/30552] gcc crashes when compiling examples with GNU statement expressions in VLAs (also involved: nested functions declared K)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30552 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |error-recovery, |

[Bug tree-optimization/83491] New: [8 Regression] ICE in execute_cse_reciprocals_1 at gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c:585

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83491 Bug ID: 83491 Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in execute_cse_reciprocals_1 at gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c:585 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/83487] [8 Regression] ICE in expand_call, at calls.c:4098

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Weird it ICEs even with -fabi-version=11.

[Bug target/83368] alloca after setjmp breaks PIC base reg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368 --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou --- > You already have code in sched-deps.c to deal with setjmp potentially not > saving registers it should across all architectures: > > if (find_reg_note (insn, REG_SETJMP, NULL)) > { >

[Bug c++/82231] [7/8 Regression] ICE when deducing non-type template parameter value whose type depends on a non-type `auto` template parameter from function arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82231 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug c/83487] [8 Regression] ICE in expand_call, at calls.c:4098

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/83468] -Wuninitialized warning not emitted when it should

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83468 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug rtl-optimization/83480] [8 Regression] ICE in create_block_for_bookkeeping, at sel-sched.c:4557 on 32-bit BE powerpc target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83480 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.0

[Bug testsuite/83483] [8 Regression] gcc.dg/memcpy-6.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83483 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Component|tree-optimization |testsuite

[Bug target/83479] Register spilling in AVX code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug gcov-profile/83486] New: [GCOV] two-dimensional const arrays is marked as not executed while the other is not

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83486 Bug ID: 83486 Summary: [GCOV] two-dimensional const arrays is marked as not executed while the other is not Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/83368] alloca after setjmp breaks PIC base reg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368 --- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou --- > Can't be done without an ABI break. But it is just the PIC register, and I'm > still of the view this is a GCC bug. You seem to not be listening to my > arguments and just reciting that "setjmp must save

[Bug target/83368] alloca after setjmp breaks PIC base reg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368 --- Comment #13 from James Clarke --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #11) > > > Again you're wrong, the call-saved registers are properly preserved if you > > > don't clobber the stack pointer, just write a small test or simply tweak >

[Bug c++/81933] [7/8 Regression] Invalid "constexpr call flows off the end of the function" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81933 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c/83487] New: [8 Regression] ICE in expand_call, at calls.c:4098

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487 Bug ID: 83487 Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in expand_call, at calls.c:4098 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-on-valid-code Severity: normal

[Bug c/83487] [8 Regression] ICE in expand_call, at calls.c:4098

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.0

[Bug c++/83490] New: [8 Regression] ICE in find_call_stack_args, at dce.c:392

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83490 Bug ID: 83490 Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in find_call_stack_args, at dce.c:392 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-on-valid-code

[Bug lto/83201] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 505.mcf_r produces incorrect output when built with -flto and FDO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201 --- Comment #11 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #10) > On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201 > > > > --- Comment #9 from Martin Liška

[Bug target/83368] alloca after setjmp breaks PIC base reg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368 --- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou --- > > Again you're wrong, the call-saved registers are properly preserved if you > > don't clobber the stack pointer, just write a small test or simply tweak > > yours. > > Yes, I know that. OK, at least

[Bug lto/83201] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 505.mcf_r produces incorrect output when built with -flto and FDO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug gcov-profile/83486] [GCOV] two-dimensional const arrays is marked as not executed while the other is not

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83486 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/83201] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 505.mcf_r produces incorrect output when built with -flto and FDO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201 --- Comment #9 from Martin Liška --- Using just a single ltrans, I see first divergence in mcf_r.ltrans0.088t.dom1. Richi, how possible is the revision real culprit?

[Bug target/83485] cris: ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2311

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83485 --- Comment #1 from Arnd Bergmann --- Reduced test case: struct uart_port { char quirks; }; struct uart_8250_port { struct uart_port port; int em485; } b[1]; int a, c; void fn1(void) { struct uart_8250_port *d = [c]; d->port.quirks |=

[Bug target/83368] alloca after setjmp breaks PIC base reg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368 --- Comment #14 from James Clarke --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #12) > > Can't be done without an ABI break. But it is just the PIC register, and I'm > > still of the view this is a GCC bug. You seem to not be listening to my > >

[Bug c++/83489] New: [8 Regression] ICE in init_cumulative_args, at config/i386/i386.c:7223

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83489 Bug ID: 83489 Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in init_cumulative_args, at config/i386/i386.c:7223 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug tree-optimization/83491] [8 Regression] ICE in execute_cse_reciprocals_1 at gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c:585

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83491 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/83467] [7/8 Regression] ICE: in assign_by_spills, at lra-assigns.c:1476: unable to find a register to spill with -flive-range-shrinkage -m8bit-idiv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83467 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.3

[Bug target/83368] alloca after setjmp breaks PIC base reg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/83479] Register spilling in AVX code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- And compiling with -Wall gives t.c: In function ‘test’: t.c:32:37: warning: index value is out of bound [-Warray-bounds] vLastCol = _mm256_set1_pd(vLastRow[4]); ^

[Bug target/83368] alloca after setjmp breaks PIC base reg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83368 --- Comment #9 from James Clarke --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #7) > > And for what it's worth, 32-bit Solaris/SPARC's setjmp isn't saving any of > > the caller's input or local registers either, so it's not glibc-specific. > >

[Bug middle-end/82365] stack locations are consolidated if noreturn function is on the path

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82365 --- Comment #12 from Arnd Bergmann --- The first partial workaround for strncpy() got merged into Linux and stable backports: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=146734b091430 Submitted a second

[Bug target/83105] [8 regression] arm-*-*eabihf: error: -mfloat-abi=hard: selected processor lacks an FPU

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83105 --- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw --- The baseline target CPU for arm linux is ARM10TDMI (armv5t), but that processor only had VFPv1 and GCC has never supported that. Code generated historically was incompatible with that target and if you

[Bug gcov-profile/83465] [GCOV] local struct const array variable is wrongly marked as not executed in gcov

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83465 --- Comment #2 from Yibiao Yang --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1) > Here I admit it's confusing, but it's related how GCC emits variable > initiation for scalars and arrays with -O0: > > While for the scalar we do: > struct S *

[Bug target/83479] Register spilling in AVX code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479 --- Comment #4 from Daniel Fruzynski --- Rule No.1: never log bugs before morning coffee ;) This does not produce warnings, compiled with "-O3 -march=haswell -mavx512f -mavx512vl -mavx512bw -mavx512dq

[Bug lto/83201] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 505.mcf_r produces incorrect output when built with -flto and FDO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201 > > --- Comment #9 from Martin Liška --- > Using just a single ltrans, I see first

[Bug c++/83490] [8 Regression] ICE in find_call_stack_args, at dce.c:392

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83490 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug lto/83201] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 505.mcf_r produces incorrect output when built with -flto and FDO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201 > > --- Comment #11 from Martin Liška --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from

[Bug c/83487] [8 Regression] ICE in expand_call, at calls.c:4098

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- It's this change: @@ -5660,10 +5668,12 @@ store_one_arg (struct arg_data *arg, rtx argblock, int flags, } } - emit_push_insn (arg->value, arg->mode, TREE_TYPE (pval), size_rtx, -

[Bug lto/83201] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 505.mcf_r produces incorrect output when built with -flto and FDO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201 --- Comment #16 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15) > SWAPINIT should end up with swaptype_long == 1 I think and swaptype_int == 1 > for the cases in question. Enforcing swaptype_int = swaptype_long = 2 > should

[Bug target/83479] Register spilling in AVX code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW CC|

[Bug gcov-profile/82614] GCOV crashes while parsing gcda file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82614 --- Comment #15 from PeteVine --- No, that's not it - gcov-dump 6/7 have no problem dumping previous versions. I'm just not sure if the problem with gcov-dump-8 is architecture specific (ARM) or it's something to do with my setup. I'm going to

[Bug middle-end/83487] [8 Regression] ICE in expand_call, at calls.c:4098

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- Better testcase: struct __attribute__ ((aligned)) S { }; void bar (int, int, int, int, int, int, int, struct S); struct S s; void foo (void) { bar (6, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, s); }

[Bug lto/83201] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 505.mcf_r produces incorrect output when built with -flto and FDO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201 --- Comment #17 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 42919 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42919=edit Patch that removes violation of aliasing rules

[Bug lto/83201] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 505.mcf_r produces incorrect output when built with -flto and FDO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201 --- Comment #14 from Richard Biener --- Copies in more benchmarks: > find benchspec -name spec_qsort.c benchspec/common/spec_qsort/spec_qsort.c benchspec/CPU/505.mcf_r/src/spec_qsort/spec_qsort.c

[Bug target/83488] [8 Regression] ICE on a CET test-case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83488 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-linux-gnu

[Bug c++/83490] [8 Regression] ICE in find_call_stack_args, at dce.c:392

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83490 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |8.0 Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/81652] [meta-bug] -fcf-protection=full -mcet bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81652 Bug 81652 depends on bug 81842, which changed state. Bug 81842 Summary: -fcf-protection -mcet is incompatible with makecontext family functions https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81842 What|Removed

[Bug target/81842] -fcf-protection -mcet is incompatible with makecontext family functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81842 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/82675] ICE in duplicate_loop_to_header_edge at gcc/cfgloopmanip.c:1207

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82675 --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Tue Dec 19 13:20:07 2017 New Revision: 255818 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255818=gcc=rev Log: Fix off by one error in loop-unroll.c (PR rtl-optimization/82675). 2017-12-19

[Bug lto/83201] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 505.mcf_r produces incorrect output when built with -flto and FDO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201 --- Comment #15 from Richard Biener --- SWAPINIT should end up with swaptype_long == 1 I think and swaptype_int == 1 for the cases in question. Enforcing swaptype_int = swaptype_long = 2 should make it work (scratch SWAPINIT calls). #define

[Bug tree-optimization/83438] [8 Regression] 435.gromacs miscompares

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83438 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, law at redhat dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83438 > > --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law --- > Richi, > > I've got a code correctness issue

[Bug tree-optimization/83491] [8 Regression] ICE in execute_cse_reciprocals_1 at gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c:585

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83491 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |8.0 Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/83479] Register spilling in AVX code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7) > but it seems this is how _mm512_set1_pd works: > > extern __inline __m512d > __attribute__ ((__gnu_inline__, __always_inline__, __artificial__)) >

[Bug target/83479] Register spilling in AVX code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83479 > > --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment

[Bug c++/83490] [8 Regression] ICE in find_call_stack_args, at dce.c:392

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83490 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Tue Dec 19 14:58:17 2017 New Revision: 255824 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255824=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/83490 * config/i386/i386.c (init_cumulative_args): Don't

[Bug c++/83471] [7 regression] internal compiler error: in mark_reachable_handlers, at tree-eh.c:3854

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83471 --- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: hjl Date: Tue Dec 19 13:38:29 2017 New Revision: 255821 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255821=gcc=rev Log: Add a tetst for PR middle-end/83471 PR middle-end/83471 *

[Bug lto/83201] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 505.mcf_r produces incorrect output when built with -flto and FDO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201 --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener --- Likely invalid. spec_qsort is full of alias violations. We sort typedef struct basket { arc_t *a; cost_t cost; cost_t abs_cost; LONG number; } BASKET; and spec_qsort does stuff like

[Bug c++/83471] [7 regression] internal compiler error: in mark_reachable_handlers, at tree-eh.c:3854

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83471 --- Comment #4 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: hjl Date: Tue Dec 19 13:40:42 2017 New Revision: 255822 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255822=gcc=rev Log: Add a tetst for PR middle-end/83471 Backported from mainline

[Bug tree-optimization/83438] [8 Regression] 435.gromacs miscompares

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83438 --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Richi, I've got a code correctness issue I'm looking at with those changes. If you could pass along the .dom2 and .dom3 dumps for the 435.gromacs benchmark I could probably scan them for the issue without

[Bug target/82096] ICE in int_mode_for_mode, at stor-layout.c:403 with arm-linux-gnueabi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82096 --- Comment #3 from sudi at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2) > I can with: > > commit 23298f15ba71145bae317e9c07f7078663dbd923 (HEAD, parent/trunk, > parent/master) > Author: rguenth

[Bug tree-optimization/81010] [8 regression] test case gcc.target/powerpc/pr56605.c fails starting with r248958

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81010 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug gcov-profile/82614] GCOV crashes while parsing gcda file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82614 --- Comment #16 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to PeteVine from comment #15) > No, that's not it - gcov-dump 6/7 have no problem dumping previous versions. > I'm just not sure if the problem with gcov-dump-8 is architecture specific > (ARM) or

[Bug c++/83489] [8 Regression] ICE in init_cumulative_args, at config/i386/i386.c:7223

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83489 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/81010] [8 regression] test case gcc.target/powerpc/pr56605.c fails starting with r248958

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81010 --- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool --- But I see the same for LE ELFv2? I wonder what's going on...

[Bug tree-optimization/82726] ICE in verify_ssa during GIMPLE pass: pcom

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82726 --- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: amker Date: Tue Dec 19 15:25:56 2017 New Revision: 255828 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255828=gcc=rev Log: Backport from mainline 2017-11-15 Bin Cheng

[Bug tree-optimization/79663] [7 Regression] r244815 causes 10% regression for spec1k/172.mgrid on AArch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79663 --- Comment #8 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: amker Date: Tue Dec 19 15:25:56 2017 New Revision: 255828 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255828=gcc=rev Log: Backport from mainline 2017-11-15 Bin Cheng

[Bug tree-optimization/70754] [6 Regression] ICE during predictive commoning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70754 --- Comment #20 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: amker Date: Tue Dec 19 15:25:56 2017 New Revision: 255828 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255828=gcc=rev Log: Backport from mainline 2017-11-15 Bin Cheng

[Bug middle-end/83487] [8 Regression] ICE in expand_call, at calls.c:4098

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek --- This actually reproduces with C and C++ ABI 12, too. The problem is this: 4096 /* Stack must be properly aligned now. */ 4097 gcc_assert (!pass 4098 || !(stack_pointer_delta %

[Bug middle-end/83487] [8 Regression] ICE in expand_call, at calls.c:4098

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83487 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- What sense does it make to align an empty struct anyway?

[Bug c++/83490] [8 Regression] ICE in find_call_stack_args, at dce.c:392

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83490 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Uh, ignore Comment 2, I goofed on the PR # :(. That was for PR83489.

[Bug preprocessor/83492] New: [7 Regression] Optimized search_line_fast breaks preprocessor on aarch64_be

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83492 Bug ID: 83492 Summary: [7 Regression] Optimized search_line_fast breaks preprocessor on aarch64_be Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug preprocessor/83492] [7/8 Regression] Optimized search_line_fast breaks preprocessor on aarch64_be

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83492 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target||aarch64_be

[Bug debug/83378] [8 regression] gcc.dg/guality/pr54970.c xpass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83378 --- Comment #2 from Andrey Guskov --- Wait, isn`t XPASS an unexpected (i.e. erroneous) pass? I know that XFAIL = expected fail, so I don`t consider it a fail. But what about XPASS?

[Bug tree-optimization/83438] [8 Regression] 435.gromacs miscompares

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83438 --- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law --- It could well be the same problem. The fix for the codegen bug I'm tracking affects relax_sh.c from 435.gromacs. I'm still investigating.

[Bug sanitizer/83356] [7 Regression] excessive stack usage compiling with -O2 -fsanitize=bounds -fsanitize=object-size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83356 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 42921 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42921=edit gcc7-pr83356.patch Untested patch for the second sanopt. This doesn't change anything on this testcase though,

[Bug middle-end/83423] default_static_chain is sorry for non-nested functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83423 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries

[Bug target/83105] [8 regression] arm-*-*eabihf: error: -mfloat-abi=hard: selected processor lacks an FPU

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83105 --- Comment #3 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > Any reason why this should be a supportable configuration? I want hard > float, but don't care what CPU/FPU I target... i think there should be a

[Bug lto/83201] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 505.mcf_r produces incorrect output when built with -flto and FDO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201 --- Comment #18 from Pat Haugen --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #16) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15) > > SWAPINIT should end up with swaptype_long == 1 I think and swaptype_int == 1 > > for the cases in question.

[Bug middle-end/81914] [7/8 Regression] gcc 7.1 generates branch for code which was branchless in earlier gcc version

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81914 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Dec 19 16:43:04 2017 New Revision: 255829 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255829=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/81914 * predict.c (zero_one_minusone): New function.

[Bug rtl-optimization/83327] Spilling into hard regs not taken into account in lra liveness analysis

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83327 --- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #6) > Submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg01030.html Approved. Todo: testing.

[Bug tree-optimization/83493] FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/pr70045.c (internal compiler error)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83493 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code, patch --- Comment #1

[Bug target/82975] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE in baseness at rtlanal.c:6220

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82975 --- Comment #6 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: ktkachov Date: Tue Dec 19 16:58:22 2017 New Revision: 255830 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255830=gcc=rev Log: [arm] PR target/82975: Guard against reg_renumber being NULL in

[Bug rtl-optimization/83494] New: [8 Regression] ICE: in assign_by_spills, at lra-assigns.c:1468: unable to find a register to spill with -flive-range-shrinkage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83494 Bug ID: 83494 Summary: [8 Regression] ICE: in assign_by_spills, at lra-assigns.c:1468: unable to find a register to spill with -flive-range-shrinkage Product: gcc

[Bug target/82975] [6/7 Regression] ICE in baseness at rtlanal.c:6220

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82975 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] ICE in |[6/7 Regression] ICE in

[Bug tree-optimization/83491] [8 Regression] ICE in execute_cse_reciprocals_1 at gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c:585

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83491 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/83493] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/pr70045.c (internal compiler error)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83493 Bug ID: 83493 Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/pr70045.c (internal compiler error) Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/83438] [8 Regression] 435.gromacs miscompares

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83438 --- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Doesn't look to be the same correctness issue I'm tracking right now as I get a mis-compare with and without those changes. Sigh.

[Bug testsuite/83454] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/cswtch-4.c and cswtch-5.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83454 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Dec 19 17:12:41 2017 New Revision: 255832 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255832=gcc=rev Log: PR testsuite/83454 * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/cswtch-4.c: Require nonpic

[Bug tree-optimization/83491] [8 Regression] ICE in execute_cse_reciprocals_1 at gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c:585

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83491 --- Comment #3 from Wilco --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > There are multiple bugs: > 1) the callers of execute_cse_reciprocals_1 ensure that def is SSA_NAME, so > using: > /* If this is a square (x * x), we should check

[Bug tree-optimization/83491] [8 Regression] ICE in execute_cse_reciprocals_1 at gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c:585

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83491 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Thanks. One more nit: /* If this is a square (x * x), we should check whether there are any enough divisions by x on it's own to warrant waiting for that pass. */ Either whether there are any

[Bug tree-optimization/83491] [8 Regression] ICE in execute_cse_reciprocals_1 at gcc/tree-ssa-math-opts.c:585

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83491 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- And "in to account" should be "into account".

  1   2   3   >