[Bug c++/80452] [DR 1579] incorrect value category deduced for return value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80452 --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 43593 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43593=edit Reduced test-case from chromium Well, I've got following reduced test-case. It comes from chromium project and my

[Bug target/84751] ICE with debug build of gcc GIMPLE pass: store-merging or IPA pass: cp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84751 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||powerpc64-linux

[Bug other/82352] [7 Regression] comdat-local function called by void h::i() outside its comdat

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82352 --- Comment #11 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Thu Mar 8 08:56:20 2018 New Revision: 258358 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258358=gcc=rev Log: Backport r256226 2018-03-08 Martin Liska Backport

[Bug gcov-profile/82633] Document GCOV and function removal (-fkeep-inline-functions, -fkeep-static-functions)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82633 --- Comment #13 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Thu Mar 8 08:55:59 2018 New Revision: 258357 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258357=gcc=rev Log: Backport r254257 2018-03-08 Martin Liska Backport

[Bug debug/84404] Several "leb128 operand is an undefined symbol" in go testsuite with latest debug improvements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84404 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug gcov-profile/84735] [8 Regression] Describe recent gcov data file format changes in gcov-io.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84735 --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Thu Mar 8 09:05:26 2018 New Revision: 258360 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258360=gcc=rev Log: Document gcov-io (PR gcov-profile/84735). 2018-03-08 Martin Liska

[Bug gcov-profile/84735] [8 Regression] Describe recent gcov data file format changes in gcov-io.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84735 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/84746] [8 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O2 and -O3: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84746 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P1 |P2 Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/84746] [8 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O2 and -O3: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84746 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P1 |P2 Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/84737] [8 Regression] 20% degradation in CPU2000 172.mgrid starting with r256888

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84737 --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška --- Thank you, may I please ask you for the IPA CP dump file for not affected revision (r256887). Do I understand the numbers right that version with .resid_.constprop.1 is slower?

[Bug c++/84569] [6 Regression] g++ -g -O3 consumes all memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84569 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ipa/82107] [6 Regression] O2 optimisation on amd64 leads to error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82107 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/81004] [7 Regression] linking failed with -flto and static libboost_program_options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004 --- Comment #33 from Martin Liška --- Can't reproduce the ICE on aarch64. There's my resolution file: cat -- -lm.res 2 20091210-1_0.o 20 213 a66530621f3cf044 PREVAILING_DEF_IRONLY _ZN5Base1D2Ev 206 a66530621f3cf044 PREVAILING_DEF_IRONLY

[Bug gcov-profile/82457] libgcov fork and exec hooks not always used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82457 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug debug/77844] [5 Regression] Compilation of simple C++ example exhaust memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77844 --- Comment #13 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Thu Mar 8 08:56:45 2018 New Revision: 258359 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258359=gcc=rev Log: Backport r243662 2018-03-08 Martin Liska Backport

[Bug gcov-profile/82633] Document GCOV and function removal (-fkeep-inline-functions, -fkeep-static-functions)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82633 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/81004] [7 Regression] linking failed with -flto and static libboost_program_options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004 --- Comment #31 from Jan Hubicka --- I will take a look. Honza

[Bug c++/84724] [7/8 Regression] internal compiler error: in single_succ_edge, at basic-block.h:339 with a declaration of __builtin_trap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84724 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 43595 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43595=edit gcc8-pr84724.patch Untested fix.

[Bug target/84756] Multiplication done twice just to get upper and lower parts of product

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84756 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --- We immediately narrow "return (Longer)a*b;" to "return a*b;" which makes it hard to CSE later. If you can, it would be better to write the code as: Longer mul = (Longer)a*b; ... use mul twice ... Not sure

[Bug debug/84408] [8 regression] gcc.dg/plugin/poly-int-07_plugin.c compilation times out with -g

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84408 --- Comment #12 from Alexandre Oliva --- Author: aoliva Date: Thu Mar 8 08:27:56 2018 New Revision: 258355 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258355=gcc=rev Log: [LVU] reset view at function entry, omit views at line zero Location views

[Bug debug/84404] Several "leb128 operand is an undefined symbol" in go testsuite with latest debug improvements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84404 --- Comment #8 from Alexandre Oliva --- Author: aoliva Date: Thu Mar 8 08:27:56 2018 New Revision: 258355 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258355=gcc=rev Log: [LVU] reset view at function entry, omit views at line zero Location views

[Bug lto/81004] [7 Regression] linking failed with -flto and static libboost_program_options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/84757] [7/8 Regression] Useless MOVs and PUSHes to store results of MUL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84757 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||i?86-*-* Priority|P3

[Bug rtl-optimization/84682] [6/7/8 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (process_address_1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84682 --- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva --- Created attachment 43594 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43594=edit candidate patch Here's what I'm testing

[Bug sanitizer/84732] false-positive -Wstringop-truncation warning with -fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84732 --- Comment #8 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2) > > I guess it somehow confuses VRP, Martin can you please take a look? Note > > that

[Bug sanitizer/84732] false-positive -Wstringop-truncation warning with -fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84732 --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška --- > So, the -Wstringop-truncation would need to do the suggested alias search > for the store rather than next statement it does now, and in addition to > that would need to ignore ASAN_CHECK, because those are

[Bug c/84755] GCC 4.6.0 build error with GCC-4.8.5 in Ubuntu 16.04 LTS

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84755 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug gcov-profile/82457] libgcov fork and exec hooks not always used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82457 --- Comment #12 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Thu Mar 8 08:52:39 2018 New Revision: 258356 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258356=gcc=rev Log: Backport r254137 2018-03-08 Martin Liska Backport

[Bug lto/81004] [7 Regression] linking failed with -flto and static libboost_program_options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84178 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Mar 8 12:56:40 2018 New Revision: 258364 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258364=gcc=rev Log: 2018-03-08 Richard Biener PR

[Bug lto/81004] [7 Regression] linking failed with -flto and static libboost_program_options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004 --- Comment #34 from Jan Hubicka --- Hi, I do not get any assertion at lto.c:840, so please also check if that still reproduce with current branch and let us know the backtrace. Honza

[Bug ipa/84658] [7/8 Regression] -O3 -fmerge-all-constants causes incorrect for-each loop generation.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84658 --- Comment #19 from Martin Liška --- Just having chat with Honza and he is curious why IPA passes should maintain points-to-sets info as it's rebuild in pass_build_alias quite soon in post IPA passes? Another question is why the

[Bug ipa/84658] [7/8 Regression] -O3 -fmerge-all-constants causes incorrect for-each loop generation.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84658 --- Comment #21 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #20) > How would IPA-PTA work then? Not having experience how that works, but I would expect a complete rebuild. Similar to what the tree PTA does?

[Bug c++/80452] [DR 1579] incorrect value category deduced for return value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80452 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- return std::move(cv);

[Bug target/84277] [8 Regression] A lot of new acats testsuite failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84277 --- Comment #15 from Rainer Emrich --- Hi Eric, thanks for all your work. Unfortunately your changes introduced an ICE while building binutils 2.19.1: make[4]: Entering directory

[Bug target/84277] [8 Regression] A lot of new acats testsuite failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84277 --- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou --- > Please submit a full bug report, > with preprocessed source if appropriate. > See for instructions. > make[4]: *** [Makefile:1005: i386-dis.lo] Error 1 > make[4]: Leaving

[Bug ipa/84658] [7/8 Regression] -O3 -fmerge-all-constants causes incorrect for-each loop generation.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84658 --- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84658 > > --- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment

[Bug ipa/84658] [7/8 Regression] -O3 -fmerge-all-constants causes incorrect for-each loop generation.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84658 --- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek --- How would IPA-PTA work then?

[Bug ipa/84658] [7/8 Regression] -O3 -fmerge-all-constants causes incorrect for-each loop generation.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84658 --- Comment #22 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #21) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #20) > > How would IPA-PTA work then? > > Not having experience how that works, but I would expect a complete rebuild. >

[Bug gcov-profile/84758] New: Wrong coverage for quite simple CFG

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84758 Bug ID: 84758 Summary: Wrong coverage for quite simple CFG Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/70359] [6/7/8 Regression] Code size increase for x86/ARM/others compared to gcc-5.3.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359 --- Comment #34 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359 > > --- Comment #32 from Aldy Hernandez --- > As mentioned in the previous comment, the

[Bug gcov-profile/84758] Wrong coverage for quite simple CFG

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84758 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.0 |9.0

[Bug target/84759] New: Calculation of quotient and remainder with constant denominator uses __umoddi3+__udivdi3 instead of __udivmoddi4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84759 Bug ID: 84759 Summary: Calculation of quotient and remainder with constant denominator uses __umoddi3+__udivdi3 instead of __udivmoddi4 Product: gcc Version:

[Bug inline-asm/84742] internal compiler error: in process_alt_operands, at lra-constraints.c:2112

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84742 --- Comment #4 from Vegard Nossum --- So I think the problem is that this loop in lra_set_insn_recog_data() counts the number of commas and uses that as the number of alternatives: 1018 for (p = constraints[0]; *p; p++) 1019

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84178 --- Comment #7 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #6) > Author: dmalcolm > Date: Thu Mar 8 12:17:36 2018 > New Revision: 258363 This fixes the testcase in comment #0 on trunk. Not yet fixed for gcc-7-branch. The

[Bug inline-asm/84742] internal compiler error: in process_alt_operands, at lra-constraints.c:2112

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84742 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug lto/81004] [7 Regression] linking failed with -flto and static libboost_program_options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004 --- Comment #35 from Christophe Lyon --- It took me a while to reproduce manually: there is an ICE at r258321, which is fixed by the next backport (r258322), at which point there 6 failures on aarch64-none-elf: FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20081125

[Bug inline-asm/84742] internal compiler error: in process_alt_operands, at lra-constraints.c:2112

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84742 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 43599 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43599=edit gcc8-pr84742.patch Untested fix.

[Bug lto/81004] [7 Regression] linking failed with -flto and static libboost_program_options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/70359] [6/7/8 Regression] Code size increase for ARM compared to gcc-5.3.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c++/84076] [6/7/8 Regression] Warning about objects through POD mistakenly claims the object is a pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84076 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 43596 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43596=edit gcc8-pr84076.patch Untested fix.

[Bug target/70359] [6/7/8 Regression] Code size increase for x86/ARM/others compared to gcc-5.3.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359 --- Comment #32 from Aldy Hernandez --- As mentioned in the previous comment, the proposed patch brings down the count from 116 to 108 on ARM, but is shy of the desired 96. The missing bytes can be attributed to forwprop folding this (IL

[Bug target/70359] [6/7/8 Regression] Code size increase for x86/ARM/others compared to gcc-5.3.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359 --- Comment #35 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, segher at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359 > > --- Comment #33 from Segher Boessenkool --- > The "> 9" transform reduces path

[Bug tree-optimization/84746] [7 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O2 and -O3: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84746 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P1 |P2 Known to work|

[Bug ipa/84658] [7/8 Regression] -O3 -fmerge-all-constants causes incorrect for-each loop generation.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84658 --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #14) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13) > > So you can loses the TREE_ADDRESSABLE restriction somewhat in requiring at > > most one decl to be

[Bug driver/83193] Help for invalid -march= options from cc1 omits -march=native on x86-64, arm. aarch64, output also inconsistent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83193 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84178 --- Comment #6 from David Malcolm --- Author: dmalcolm Date: Thu Mar 8 12:17:36 2018 New Revision: 258363 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258363=gcc=rev Log: tree-if-conv.c: fix ICE seen with -fno-tree-forwprop (PR

[Bug inline-asm/84742] internal compiler error: in process_alt_operands, at lra-constraints.c:2112

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84742 --- Comment #2 from Vegard Nossum --- Created attachment 43598 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43598=edit ASAN output I compiled gcc itself using -fstack-protector-all -fsanitize=address and it occasionally gives me the

[Bug middle-end/54183] Generate __udivmoddi4 instead of __udivdi3 plus __umoddi3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54183 Ruslan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||b7.10110111 at gmail dot com --- Comment #1

[Bug target/84521] [8 Regression] aarch64: Frame-pointer corruption with __builtin_setjmp/__builtin_longjmp and -fomit-frame-pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84521 --- Comment #18 from ramana.radhakrishnan at foss dot arm.com --- On 07/03/2018 18:59, sudi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84521 > > --- Comment #17 from sudi at gcc dot gnu.org --- > I looked up what

[Bug target/70359] [6/7/8 Regression] Code size increase for x86/ARM/others compared to gcc-5.3.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359 --- Comment #31 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359 > > Aldy Hernandez changed: > >What|Removed |Added

[Bug debug/84456] [8 regression] gcc.dg/guality/pr49888.c fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84456 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug inline-asm/84742] internal compiler error: in process_alt_operands, at lra-constraints.c:2112

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84742 --- Comment #3 from Vegard Nossum --- gcc/recog.c:2395 is: 2390 case '0': case '1': case '2': case '3': case '4': 2391 case '5': case '6': case '7': case '8': case '9': 2392 { 2393 char *end; 2394 op_alt[i].matches = strtoul (p, ,

[Bug target/84759] Calculation of quotient and remainder with constant denominator uses __umoddi3+__udivdi3 instead of __udivmoddi4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84759 prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc

[Bug gcov-profile/84758] Wrong coverage for quite simple CFG

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84758 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.0

[Bug target/70359] [6/7/8 Regression] Code size increase for x86/ARM/others compared to gcc-5.3.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70359 --- Comment #33 from Segher Boessenkool --- The "> 9" transform reduces path length. But foe -Os that is often not a good idea.

[Bug ipa/84658] [7/8 Regression] -O3 -fmerge-all-constants causes incorrect for-each loop generation.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84658 --- Comment #14 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13) > So you can loses the TREE_ADDRESSABLE restriction somewhat in requiring at > most one decl to be TREE_ADDRESSABLE - that's the one you need to keep, the >

[Bug tree-optimization/84552] [6/7/8 Regression] Compile time hog w/ -O2 -floop-nest-optimize -fno-tree-copy-prop -fno-tree-fre -fno-tree-loop-ivcanon

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84552 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P4 |P2 Target Milestone|8.0

[Bug ipa/84658] [7/8 Regression] -O3 -fmerge-all-constants causes incorrect for-each loop generation.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84658 --- Comment #16 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #14) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13) > > So you can loses the TREE_ADDRESSABLE restriction somewhat in requiring at > > most one decl to be

[Bug ipa/84658] [7/8 Regression] -O3 -fmerge-all-constants causes incorrect for-each loop generation.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84658 --- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16) > Hum, isn't the bug INVALID then? Shouldn't we restrict -fmerge-all-constants No. > to not address-taken variables to not make the option useless?

[Bug debug/84456] [8 regression] gcc.dg/guality/pr49888.c fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84456 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- So, the bug is that GCC 7's dw_loc_list tail: /* Try to avoid the overhead of a location list emitting a location expression instead, but only if we didn't have more than one location entry in

[Bug tree-optimization/84552] [6/7/8 Regression] Compile time hog w/ -O2 -floop-nest-optimize -fno-tree-copy-prop -fno-tree-fre -fno-tree-loop-ivcanon

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84552 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Mar 8 14:41:39 2018 New Revision: 258365 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258365=gcc=rev Log: 2018-03-08 Richard Biener PR middle-end/84552

[Bug c++/84569] [6 Regression] g++ -g -O3 consumes all memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84569 --- Comment #5 from Jö --- I can report that that indeed fixes the issue for us; the unit test now compiles fine with gcc revision 258359. Thanks a lot!

[Bug c/84762] New: GCC for PowerPC32 violates the SysV ABI spec for small struct returns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84762 Bug ID: 84762 Summary: GCC for PowerPC32 violates the SysV ABI spec for small struct returns Product: gcc Version: 6.4.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug ipa/84658] [7/8 Regression] -O3 -fmerge-all-constants causes incorrect for-each loop generation.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84658 --- Comment #23 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84658 > > --- Comment #22 from Martin Liška --- > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment

[Bug target/84760] New: Finish implementation of __builtin_altivec_lvx_v1ti

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84760 Bug ID: 84760 Summary: Finish implementation of __builtin_altivec_lvx_v1ti Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug sanitizer/84761] New: AddressSanitizer is not compatible with glibc 2.27 on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84761 Bug ID: 84761 Summary: AddressSanitizer is not compatible with glibc 2.27 on x86 Product: gcc Version: 8.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/84737] [8 Regression] 20% degradation in CPU2000 172.mgrid starting with r256888

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84737 --- Comment #5 from Pat Haugen --- Created attachment 43601 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43601=edit ipa-cp dump (r256887) (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4) > Thank you, may I please ask you for the IPA CP dump

[Bug fortran/64124] [F95] Valid constant expr rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64124 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/32834] [Meta-bug] 'Fortran 95'-only failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32834 Bug 32834 depends on bug 64124, which changed state. Bug 64124 Summary: [F95] Valid constant expr rejected https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64124 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/70409] Silent truncation of character parameters with len=huge()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70409 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/68441] ICE on using transfer with character parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68441 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|NEW

[Bug target/84760] Finish implementation of __builtin_altivec_lvx_v1ti

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84760 --- Comment #2 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org --- I don't argue either way on this, but it looks to me like we do not currently have support for __int128 with vec_ld. 1. I can't fine it in the rs6000-c tables. 2. This test fails to compile:

The Hotel Show Saudi Arabia is Back!

This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format. If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails. You can read the original version online: http://ymlpsend3.com/zZdRJa

[Bug target/84277] [8 Regression] A lot of new acats testsuite failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84277 --- Comment #17 from Rainer Emrich --- Otherwise this looks good: === acats Summary === # of expected passes2315 # of unexpected failures5 *** FAILURES: c23003b c23003g c23003i

[Bug c/84764] Wrong warning "so large that it is unsigned" for __int128 constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84764 --- Comment #1 from Pascal Cuoq --- I meant "the warning implies that the constant is typed as unsigned long long...".

[Bug target/84751] ICE with debug build of gcc GIMPLE pass: store-merging or IPA pass: cp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84751 --- Comment #3 from Will Schmidt --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > What configure flags for that specially configured gcc? > Can you in a debugger pt whatever tree_operand_hash::hash is called on? > I certainly can't reproduce

[Bug c/84764] New: Wrong warning "so large that it is unsigned" for __int128 constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84764 Bug ID: 84764 Summary: Wrong warning "so large that it is unsigned" for __int128 constant Product: gcc Version: 7.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/84764] Wrong warning "so large that it is unsigned" for __int128 constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84764 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- __int128 is not an extended integer type in the C sense. The main reason is because intmax_t is not defined as __int128.

[Bug fortran/70409] Silent truncation of character parameters with len=huge()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70409 --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Thu Mar 8 19:01:23 2018 New Revision: 258367 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258367=gcc=rev Log: 2018-03-08 Steven G. Kargl PR

[Bug target/84277] [8 Regression] A lot of new acats testsuite failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84277 --- Comment #18 from Eric Botcazou --- > Otherwise this looks good: > > === acats Summary === > # of expected passes 2315 > # of unexpected failures 5 > *** FAILURES: c23003b c23003g c23003i c250002 c380004 > >

[Bug target/84760] Finish implementation of __builtin_altivec_lvx_v1ti

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84760 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/64124] [F95] Valid constant expr rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64124 --- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Thu Mar 8 19:06:57 2018 New Revision: 258368 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258368=gcc=rev Log: 2018-03-08 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/64124

[Bug fortran/70409] Silent truncation of character parameters with len=huge()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70409 --- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Thu Mar 8 19:06:57 2018 New Revision: 258368 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258368=gcc=rev Log: 2018-03-08 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/64124

[Bug fortran/68441] ICE on using transfer with character parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68441 Bug 68441 depends on bug 70409, which changed state. Bug 70409 Summary: Silent truncation of character parameters with len=huge() https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70409 What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/84751] ICE with debug build of gcc GIMPLE pass: store-merging or IPA pass: cp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84751 --- Comment #2 from Will Schmidt --- Created attachment 43602 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43602=edit config.log

[Bug fortran/64124] [F95] Valid constant expr rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64124 --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Thu Mar 8 19:01:23 2018 New Revision: 258367 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258367=gcc=rev Log: 2018-03-08 Steven G. Kargl PR

[Bug target/84751] ICE with debug build of gcc GIMPLE pass: store-merging or IPA pass: cp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84751 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Will Schmidt from comment #3) > $ /home/willschm/gcc/trunk.svn/configure --with-cpu=power7 > --with-long-double-128 --prefix=/home/willschm/gcc/install/gnc > --disable-bootstrap

[Bug target/67288] [6/7/8 regression] non optimal simple function (useless additional shift/remove/shift/add)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67288 --- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool --- This loop init stuff is created by the RTL loop optimisers; if those could see 0 cannot happen, they can optimise this.

[Bug inline-asm/84742] internal compiler error: in process_alt_operands, at lra-constraints.c:2112

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84742 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Mar 8 20:55:03 2018 New Revision: 258369 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258369=gcc=rev Log: PR inline-asm/84742 * recog.c (asm_operand_ok): Return 0 if

  1   2   >