[Bug target/84272] [8 Regression] AddressSanitizer: heap-use-after-free ../../gcc/config/aarch64/cortex-a57-fma-steering.c:519 in fma_node::get_parity()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84272 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #43381|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/84272] [8 Regression] AddressSanitizer: heap-use-after-free ../../gcc/config/aarch64/cortex-a57-fma-steering.c:519 in fma_node::get_parity()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84272 --- Comment #10 from Thomas Preud'homme --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9) > Created attachment 43384 [details] > gcc8-pr84272.patch > > So like this? A few additional changes, Florian Weimer suggested using > preincrement instead

[Bug middle-end/84309] [8 Regression] Wrong-code with -ffast-math

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84309 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Target Milestone|---

[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 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/84272] [8 Regression] AddressSanitizer: heap-use-after-free ../../gcc/config/aarch64/cortex-a57-fma-steering.c:519 in fma_node::get_parity()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84272 --- Comment #7 from Thomas Preud'homme --- Hi Jakub, First of all, thanks for beating me to it. Wanted to look at it but am fighting strong headache since Wednesday. Regarding the second patch, I believe it is the right approach but found

[Bug rtl-optimization/84308] New: [7/8 Regression] Memory leak in spread_components

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84308 Bug ID: 84308 Summary: [7/8 Regression] Memory leak in spread_components Product: gcc Version: 7.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug sanitizer/84307] asan blocks dead-store elimination

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84307 Paolo Bonzini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/84308] [7/8 Regression] Memory leak in spread_components

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84308 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug sanitizer/84307] New: asan blocks dead-store elimination

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84307 Bug ID: 84307 Summary: asan blocks dead-store elimination Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: sanitizer

[Bug rtl-optimization/84308] [7/8 Regression] Memory leak in spread_components

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84308 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 43385 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43385=edit gcc8-pr84308.patch Untested fix.

[Bug middle-end/84309] [8 Regression] Wrong-code with -ffast-math

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84309 --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek --- Started with r251230.

[Bug middle-end/84309] New: [8 Regression] Wrong-code with -ffast-math

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84309 Bug ID: 84309 Summary: [8 Regression] Wrong-code with -ffast-math Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/84281] Heap grows indefinitely

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84281 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/84281] Heap grows indefinitely

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84281 --- Comment #7 from fiesh at zefix dot tv --- Oh, I just realize I misunderstood what ice-on-invalid means. Sorry about that!

[Bug target/84301] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE in create_pre_exit, at mode-switching.c:451

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84301 --- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak --- The function should have either be declared void or with a value return. Otherwise, selective scheduler should be taught to not separate (insn 16) from its use (insn 19): ... (insn 17 9 18 2 (clobber

[Bug target/84301] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE in create_pre_exit, at mode-switching.c:451

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84301 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/84301] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE in create_pre_exit, at mode-switching.c:451

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84301 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Started with r217331.

[Bug target/84278] claims initv4sfv2sf is available but inits through stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84278 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84278 > > --- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE>

[Bug c/84304] tree check fail in to_wide, at tree.h:5527

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84304 --- Comment #2 from David Binderman --- For a valgrind version of gcc trunk revision 256812, I see this: /home/dcb/gcc/results.256812.valgrind/bin/gcc ==31515== Invalid read of size 8 ==31515==at 0xFB02C6: canonize (wide-int.cc:96)

[Bug target/84278] claims initv4sfv2sf is available but inits through stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84278 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri Feb 9 09:19:34 2018 New Revision: 257518 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257518=gcc=rev Log: 2018-02-09 Richard Biener PR

[Bug c/84304] New: tree check fail in to_wide, at tree.h:5527

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84304 Bug ID: 84304 Summary: tree check fail in to_wide, at tree.h:5527 Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c/84304] tree check fail in to_wide, at tree.h:5527

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84304 --- Comment #1 from David Binderman --- Range of revisions seems to be 256420 and 256556

[Bug target/84251] [8 Regression] Performance regression in gcc 8 when comparing floating point numbers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84251 --- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak --- cse1 pass of gcc-7 converts several insns (15,16,19,24) in BB4 from: 12: L12: 13: NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK 4 14: flags:CCFPU=cmp(r89:DF,r90:DF) 15: r96:QI=ordered(flags:CCFPU,0) 16:

[Bug target/84272] [8 Regression] AddressSanitizer: heap-use-after-free ../../gcc/config/aarch64/cortex-a57-fma-steering.c:519 in fma_node::get_parity()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84272 --- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > Created attachment 43382 [details] > gcc8-pr84272-2.patch > > Or defer deletion of all the fma_nodes until the end, whether they are root > or not.

[Bug target/84272] [8 Regression] AddressSanitizer: heap-use-after-free ../../gcc/config/aarch64/cortex-a57-fma-steering.c:519 in fma_node::get_parity()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84272 --- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > Created attachment 43382 [details] > gcc8-pr84272-2.patch > > Or defer deletion of all the fma_nodes until the end, whether they are root > or not.

[Bug lto/84213] [8 Regression] 521.wrf_r from SPEC 2017 fails to build (link) with LTO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84213 --- Comment #15 from pmderodat at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: pmderodat Date: Fri Feb 9 14:02:37 2018 New Revision: 257526 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257526=gcc=rev Log: DWARF: no location for non-definition DECLs with non-trivial

[Bug lto/84213] [8 Regression] 521.wrf_r from SPEC 2017 fails to build (link) with LTO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84213 Pierre-Marie de Rodat changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/84282] [8 Regression] Probably rejected valid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84282 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- (same as PR 84012)

[Bug target/84272] [8 Regression] AddressSanitizer: heap-use-after-free ../../gcc/config/aarch64/cortex-a57-fma-steering.c:519 in fma_node::get_parity()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84272 --- Comment #11 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9) > Created attachment 43384 [details] > gcc8-pr84272.patch > > So like this? A few additional changes, Florian Weimer suggested using > preincrement

[Bug target/65674] stack smashing protector must be controllable per-function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65674 Stas Sergeev changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/84037] [8 Regression] Speed regression of polyhedron benchmark since r256644

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84037 --- Comment #27 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to amker from comment #26) > (In reply to amker from comment #25) > > I tend to believe this is an register pressure based strength-reduction + > > lim problem than ivopts. > > > > So given

[Bug fortran/84276] Invalid error for valid statement function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84276 mecej4 changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mecej4 at outlook dot com --- Comment #8 from

[Bug inline-asm/66631] inability to clobber segment regs makes tls problematic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66631 Stas Sergeev changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/84310] -falign-{labels,loops,jumps} with value >= 32768+1 cause a segfault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84310 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/84310] New: -falign-{labels,loops,jumps} with value >= 32768+1 cause a segfault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84310 Bug ID: 84310 Summary: -falign-{labels,loops,jumps} with value >= 32768+1 cause a segfault Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug lto/84213] [8 Regression] 521.wrf_r from SPEC 2017 fails to build (link) with LTO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84213 --- Comment #14 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat --- (In reply to Pierre-Marie de Rodat from comment #13) > IIRC, DECL_VALUE_EXPR is something like MEM_REF (-1). Yes, I’ll give it a > try… I submitted a candidate patch:

<    1   2