[Bug fortran/68649] [6/7/8 Regression] note: code may be misoptimized unless -fno-strict-aliasing is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68649 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug ada/84198] New: Illegal program accepted, storing an anonymous access-to-subprogram value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84198 Bug ID: 84198 Summary: Illegal program accepted, storing an anonymous access-to-subprogram value Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug testsuite/84094] several correctness issues in gfortran.dg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84094 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug ada/84198] Illegal program accepted, storing an anonymous access-to-subprogram value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84198 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/82518] [8 regression] gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 fails on armeb since r252917

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518 --- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez --- I'm having some trouble reproducing this bug. I'm a little rusty on cross builds, so perhaps someone can lend a hand. I have a set of combined sources which I'm using to build a toolchain like this:

[Bug fortran/84115] [8 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected tree that contains 'decl minimal' structure, have 'indirect_ref' in add_decl_as_local, at fortran/trans-decl.c:256

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84115 --- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas --- Author: pault Date: Sun Feb 4 13:18:33 2018 New Revision: 257363 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257363=gcc=rev Log: 2018-02-04 Paul Thomas PR fortran/84115 *

[Bug c/84173] Support glibc multiarch interpreter names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173 Joseph S. Myers changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/84173] Support glibc multiarch interpreter names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173 --- Comment #10 from Javier Serrano Polo --- (In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #9) > Not a bug. The appropriate time to raise such an issue is if in future > there is otherwise consensus to have a major libc ABI break and move to >

[Bug rtl-optimization/59393] [6/7/8 regression] mips16/7/8 code size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59393 --- Comment #13 from Aldy Hernandez --- Do we care though? Does this bug pose a big enough problem on non MIPS16 that we would like addressed? Just curious On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 10:50 AM, law at redhat dot com

[Bug rtl-optimization/59393] [6/7/8 regression] mips16/7/8 code size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59393 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING CC|

[Bug fortran/84115] [8 Regression] Failure in associate construct with concatenated character target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84115 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[8 Regression] ICE: tree|[8 Regression] Failure in

[Bug testsuite/84094] several correctness issues in gfortran.dg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84094 --- Comment #2 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: dominiq Date: Sun Feb 4 13:44:52 2018 New Revision: 257364 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257364=gcc=rev Log: 2018-02-04 Dominique d'Humieres PR

[Bug tree-optimization/84114] global reassociation pass prevents fma usage, generates slower code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84114 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wdijkstr at arm dot com --- Comment #2 from

[Bug c/84173] Support glibc multiarch interpreter names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173 --- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Javier Serrano Polo from comment #10) > This report is about the patch that will be submitted with multiarch names. If you intend to send a patch, you can send it directly to

[Bug rtl-optimization/59393] [6/7/8 regression] mips16/7/8 code size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59393 --- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law --- One more tidbit here. I noted that we got "reasonably" close to having enough state in the combiner to attack this in c#7. The problem is there's a REG object that we really need to be a CONST_INT. It

[Bug c/84166] Wrong warning message emitted for loss of qualifiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84166 Thanassis Tsiodras changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/84190] [7 Regression] double arithmetic on x86 no longer rounds to nearest

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84190 --- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- You need to use -fexcess-precision=standard (or -msse2 -mfpmath=sse) for predictable results from double arithmetic on 32-bit x86. If you do that, do you still see such a problem? If

[Bug fortran/33234] Confusing diagnostic when passing intrinsic function as actual argument without INTRINSIC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33234 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|-stf=f* and passing |Confusing diagnostic when

[Bug c/84100] [7 Regression] Function __attribute__((optimize(align-loops=32))) gives spurious warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84100 --- Comment #7 from Chris Hall --- And here's a funny thing... ... if I compile "-O3 -falign-functions -falign-loops=32" I get the alignment I ask for. ... if I compile "-O3 -falign-functions -falign-loops=32 -fno-tree-vectorize" I get the

[Bug c/84190] [7 Regression] double arithmetic on x86 no longer rounds to nearest

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84190 --- Comment #5 from Bruno Haible --- (In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #4) > You need to use -fexcess-precision=standard (or -msse2 -mfpmath=sse) for > predictable results from double arithmetic on 32-bit x86. If you do that,

[Bug ipa/79966] [6/7 Regression] run time more than twice slower when using -fipa-cp-clone

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79966 --- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka --- Author: hubicka Date: Sun Feb 4 17:15:36 2018 New Revision: 257367 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257367=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/79966 * gfortran.dg/pr79966.f90: New testcase

[Bug target/84113] [7/8 Regression] libgcc/unwind.inc:136:1: unrecognizable insn: internal compiler error on Darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113 --- Comment #23 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Douglas Mencken from comment #22) > as for https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg02040.html > I think that optimizing epilogues is a good idea, but not of a cost of >

[Bug target/80865] broken compilation on Mac OS X 10.5 / powerpc: unrecognizable insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80865 Douglas Mencken changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dougmencken at gmail dot com ---

[Bug rtl-optimization/59393] [6/7/8 regression] mips16/7/8 code size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59393 --- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law --- I suspect we could likely show a similar codesize and performance regression on other targets. ppc & arm come to mind. aarch64 as well, but it wouldn't be a regression there since it didn't exist when

[Bug target/84113] [7/8 Regression] libgcc/unwind.inc:136:1: unrecognizable insn: internal compiler error on Darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113 --- Comment #32 from Segher Boessenkool --- Yes, run "make -k check" (add -jN to taste if you have multiple CPUs). And then run contrib/test_summary. See if that is as expected (compare it to previous powerpc-darwin results on gcc-testresults@;

[Bug target/84113] [7/8 Regression] libgcc/unwind.inc:136:1: unrecognizable insn: internal compiler error on Darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113 --- Comment #27 from Segher Boessenkool --- Yes.

[Bug ipa/80899] [6/7/8 Regression] Devirtualization causes incorrect code generation with placement new in some cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80899 --- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka --- The problem here is that after gimplification we make no distinction between original pointer and pointer returned by placement new. If one can placement new different type to object into arbitrary field of

[Bug target/84113] [7/8 Regression] libgcc/unwind.inc:136:1: unrecognizable insn: internal compiler error on Darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113 --- Comment #22 from Douglas Mencken --- So yet I have fully workin’ $ /Developer/GCC/7.3patched/PowerPC/32bit/bin/gcc -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=/Developer/GCC/7.3patched/PowerPC/32bit/bin/gcc

[Bug middle-end/84016] [8 Regression] Spec2000 regression around Jan 14 and Jan 19 2018

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84016 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||84149 --- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka

[Bug target/84113] [7/8 Regression] libgcc/unwind.inc:136:1: unrecognizable insn: internal compiler error on Darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113 --- Comment #30 from Douglas Mencken --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #29) > The patch has never been sent to gcc-patches. It also still never was > properly tested. Can you do that? Like doing ‘make check’ after it completes

[Bug target/84113] [7/8 Regression] libgcc/unwind.inc:136:1: unrecognizable insn: internal compiler error on Darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113 --- Comment #26 from Douglas Mencken --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #25) > Please test https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2017-01/txtnZhWiDkC4z.txt Okay, and as I got it, it is supposed to apply upon fresh GCC with that

[Bug c/25892] -Wpointer-sign creates problems for Emacs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25892 --- Comment #10 from postmas...@welsh-buck-org.bounceio.net --- Your email was bounced... - ... because something went wrong between you and your recipient. Bummer! What to do next?

[Bug target/84113] [7/8 Regression] libgcc/unwind.inc:136:1: unrecognizable insn: internal compiler error on Darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113 --- Comment #29 from Segher Boessenkool --- The patch has never been sent to gcc-patches. It also still never was properly tested. Can you do that?

[Bug target/84113] [7/8 Regression] libgcc/unwind.inc:136:1: unrecognizable insn: internal compiler error on Darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113 --- Comment #31 from Douglas Mencken --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #29) > The patch has never been sent to gcc-patches. It also still never was > properly tested. Can you do that? Or you’re bout sending it to “gcc-patches”

[Bug middle-end/84200] New: r256888 causes 30% performance regression of 519.lbm_r at -Ofast generic tuning on Zen

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84200 Bug ID: 84200 Summary: r256888 causes 30% performance regression of 519.lbm_r at -Ofast generic tuning on Zen Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug ipa/79966] [6/7 Regression] run time more than twice slower when using -fipa-cp-clone

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79966 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] run time |[6/7 Regression] run time

[Bug target/84113] [7/8 Regression] libgcc/unwind.inc:136:1: unrecognizable insn: internal compiler error on Darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113 --- Comment #24 from Douglas Mencken --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #23) > GCC 7 was released more than nine months ago, and yet no one has noticed > that it does not build at all on powerpc-darwin. We cannot do magic. Well,

[Bug target/84113] [7/8 Regression] libgcc/unwind.inc:136:1: unrecognizable insn: internal compiler error on Darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113 --- Comment #25 from Segher Boessenkool --- Please test https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2017-01/txtnZhWiDkC4z.txt .

[Bug target/84113] [7/8 Regression] libgcc/unwind.inc:136:1: unrecognizable insn: internal compiler error on Darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113 --- Comment #28 from Douglas Mencken --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #27) > Yes. Wow, it compiles So I suggest to push patch https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2017-01/txtnZhWiDkC4z.txt after checking on other rs6000

[Bug rtl-optimization/59393] [6/7/8 regression] mips16/7/8 code size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59393 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug bootstrap/84199] New: Error building gcc 7.3.0 on Odroid XU4 (ARM, Ubuntu): cannot load liblto_plugin.so

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84199 Bug ID: 84199 Summary: Error building gcc 7.3.0 on Odroid XU4 (ARM, Ubuntu): cannot load liblto_plugin.so Product: gcc Version: 7.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/81797] gcc 7.1.0 fails to build on macOS 10.13 (High Sierra):

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797 --- Comment #51 from Jonathan Wakely --- The patch in comment 45 is not acceptable for all platforms. I'll entertain a patch that only affects the broken platforms, but not something that will end up being carried around forever and for

[Bug tree-optimization/84203] add -Wsuggest-attribute=returns_nonnull

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84203 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic See Also|

[Bug libstdc++/81797] gcc 7.1.0 fails to build on macOS 10.13 (High Sierra):

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797 --- Comment #50 from Chris Johns --- I raised an Apple bug report last December, the number is 36163995. Nothing useful has happened. I will ping the bug and ask what is happening.

[Bug tree-optimization/84203] New: add -Wsuggest-attribute=returns_nonnull

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84203 Bug ID: 84203 Summary: add -Wsuggest-attribute=returns_nonnull Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/84202] missing -Wnonnull on a returns_nonnull function returning null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84202 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||58689 --- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor

[Bug target/84201] New: 549.fotonik3d_r from SPEC2017 fails verification with -mprefer-vector-width=256 or 512 on Zen

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84201 Bug ID: 84201 Summary: 549.fotonik3d_r from SPEC2017 fails verification with -mprefer-vector-width=256 or 512 on Zen Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/84202] New: missing -Wnonnull on a returns_nonnull function returning null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84202 Bug ID: 84202 Summary: missing -Wnonnull on a returns_nonnull function returning null Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/84203] add -Wsuggest-attribute=returns_nonnull

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84203 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||58689 --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor

[Bug c++/84197] New: Segmentation fault when setting -g

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84197 Bug ID: 84197 Summary: Segmentation fault when setting -g Product: gcc Version: 7.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug sanitizer/84208] New: fsanitize-address-use-after-scope Not working for ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84208 Bug ID: 84208 Summary: fsanitize-address-use-after-scope Not working for ARM Product: gcc Version: 6.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug sanitizer/84208] fsanitize-address-use-after-scope Not working for ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84208 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Does it work on non changed gcc 7.2 on arm? And with arm do mean arm-linux-gnueabi as the target or aarch64-linux-gnu?

[Bug tree-optimization/84205] New: [8 Regression] [graphite] ICE in set_codegen_error, at graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c:206

/portage/cross-powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu/gcc-8.0.0_alpha20180204/work/gcc-8-20180204/gcc/graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c:205 0x13fc5e5 translate_isl_ast_to_gimple::set_codegen_error() /var/tmp/portage/cross-powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu/gcc-8.0.0_alpha20180204/work/gcc-8-20180204/gcc/graphite-isl-a

[Bug rtl-optimization/84206] New: ICE in get_all_loop_exits, at sel-sched-ir.h:1138

-w -c isyp3qtx.c during RTL pass: sched1 isyp3qtx.c: In function 'b8': isyp3qtx.c:21:1: internal compiler error: in get_all_loop_exits, at sel-sched-ir.h:1138 } ^ 0xbf8740 get_all_loop_exits /var/tmp/portage/cross-powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu/gcc-8.0.0_alpha20180204/work/gcc-8-20180204/g

[Bug tree-optimization/84204] New: [8 Regression] [graphite] ICE in set_codegen_error, at graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c:206

_error() /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-8.0.0_alpha20180204/work/gcc-8-20180204/gcc/graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c:205 0x723140 translate_isl_ast_to_gimple::set_codegen_error() /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-8.0.0_alpha20180204/work/gcc-8-20180204/gcc/tree.h:3246 0x723140 translate_isl_ast_to_

[Bug translation/84207] New: Hard coded plural in gimple-fold.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84207 Bug ID: 84207 Summary: Hard coded plural in gimple-fold.c Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: translation

[Bug go/71635] gcc-go fails to link golang-googlecode-net

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71635 Ian Lance Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/84178] [7/8 Regression] ICE in release_bb_predicate

-forwprop -c tt.c during GIMPLE pass: ifcvt tt.c: In function 'r8': tt.c:4:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault r8 (long int mu, int *jr, int *fi, short int dv) ^~ 0xc97d0f crash_signal /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-8.0.0_alpha20180204/work/gcc-8-20180204/gcc/toplev.c:325

[Bug go/68420] Errors with go escape analysis

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68420 Ian Lance Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug go/71396] "use of undefined type" error in gccgo-6 when go (1.6.1) is perfectly happy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71396 Ian Lance Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug go/53679] Build failure in libgo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53679 Ian Lance Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/84113] [7/8 Regression] libgcc/unwind.inc:136:1: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2311

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113 --- Comment #21 from Douglas Mencken --- Created attachment 43334 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43334=edit Reverting patch I fully reverted that commit on top of gcc-7_3_0-release, and build succeeds