[Bug sanitizer/65749] New: sanitizer stack trace pc off by 1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65749 Bug ID: 65749 Summary: sanitizer stack trace pc off by 1 Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: sanitizer

[Bug c++/65750] New: miss interpret in a virtual member function with a C++11 style function signature

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65750 Bug ID: 65750 Summary: miss interpret in a virtual member function with a C++11 style function signature Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/65710] [4.9/5 Regression] Thumb1 ICE caused by no register to spill

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65710 --- Comment #31 from xuepeng guo xguo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: xguo Date: Mon Apr 13 05:22:09 2015 New Revision: 222037 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222037root=gccview=rev Log: Add missing test case 2015-04-13 Terry Guo

[Bug c++/57533] When throwing local variable, it's being move-constructed even if not going out of scope.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57533 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||frankhb1989 at

[Bug c++/65748] [C++11][C++14]Invalid copy elision on operand of throw-exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65748 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug sanitizer/65479] sanitizer stack trace missing frames past #0 on powerpc64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65479 Martin Sebor msebor at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||65749 ---

[Bug sanitizer/64078] FAIL: c-c++-common/ubsan/object-size-9.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64078 --- Comment #12 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de --- The same could happen also with object-size-10.c: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-04/msg01293.html FAIL: c-c++-common/ubsan/object-size-10.c -O2 execution

[Bug fortran/58754] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] ICE on allocating character array with source

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58754 --- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- This fixes the problem. Confirmed. However, it will produce multiple evaluations of function results and expressions. I will introduce a temporary to cover those cases.

[Bug fortran/65089] FAIL: gfortran.dg/io_real_boz(2|_[45]).f90 when tested with -fsanitize=address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65089 --- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- This patch resolves the -fsanitize=address issue and also does some memory cleanup on formatted I/O errors. I have regression tested and all is OK, but have not tried all

[Bug fortran/59997] c_pointer = c_loc(...) internal compiler error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59997 --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- I am confused by the comments 5 to 7, probably because my comment 4 was confusing. What I have tested is 4.8.5 with the patch for fortran/trans-expr.c plus the additional

[Bug libfortran/65234] Output descriptor (*(1E15.7)) not accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65234 --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- This patch passes regression testing and NIST testing. Fairly simple. Works as advertised! Thanks.

[Bug c++/65748] [C++11][C++14]Invalid copy elision on operand of throw-exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65748 --- Comment #1 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com --- G++ 5 also seems to fail. Recent Clang++ is OK.

[Bug lto/65746] New: [5 Regression] 450.soplex in SPEC CPU 2006 is miscompiled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65746 Bug ID: 65746 Summary: [5 Regression] 450.soplex in SPEC CPU 2006 is miscompiled Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/65748] New: [C++11][C++14]Invalid copy elision on operand of throw-exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65748 Bug ID: 65748 Summary: [C++11][C++14]Invalid copy elision on operand of throw-exception Product: gcc Version: 4.9.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/65744] New: Some AVX512 instrinsics take __mmask16 instead of __mmask8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65744 Bug ID: 65744 Summary: Some AVX512 instrinsics take __mmask16 instead of __mmask8 Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug lto/65745] New: [5 Regression] lto ICE (Segmentation fault) on powerpc64le-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65745 Bug ID: 65745 Summary: [5 Regression] lto ICE (Segmentation fault) on powerpc64le-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/65747] New: [5 Regression] ICE (in compare_ssa_name, at ipa-icf-gimple.c:134) on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65747 Bug ID: 65747 Summary: [5 Regression] ICE (in compare_ssa_name, at ipa-icf-gimple.c:134) on x86_64-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/65747] [5 Regression] ICE (in compare_ssa_name, at ipa-icf-gimple.c:134) on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65747 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 35304 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35304action=edit gcc5-pr65747.patch Untested fix. Honza, does this make sense?

[Bug middle-end/65747] [5 Regression] ICE (in compare_ssa_name, at ipa-icf-gimple.c:134) on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65747 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug lto/65745] [5 Regression] lto ICE (Segmentation fault) on powerpc64le-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65745 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot

[Bug lto/65746] [5 Regression] 450.soplex in SPEC CPU 2006 is miscompiled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65746 H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug inline-asm/65741] Missed loop optimization with asm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65741 Segher Boessenkool segher at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug c++/65736] [5 Regression] ICE (in process_init_constructor_array, at cp/typeck2.c:1263)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65736 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jakub Date: Sun Apr 12 19:10:58 2015 New Revision: 222022 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222022root=gccview=rev Log: PR c++/65736 * constexpr.c

[Bug middle-end/65735] [5 Regression] ICE (in duplicate_thread_path, at tree-ssa-threadupdate.c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65735 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1

[Bug c++/65736] [5 Regression] ICE (in process_init_constructor_array, at cp/typeck2.c:1263)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65736 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug middle-end/65747] [5 Regression] ICE (in compare_ssa_name, at ipa-icf-gimple.c:134) on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65747 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jakub Date: Sun Apr 12 19:30:51 2015 New Revision: 222024 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222024root=gccview=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/65747 *

[Bug middle-end/65747] [5 Regression] ICE (in compare_ssa_name, at ipa-icf-gimple.c:134) on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65747 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1

[Bug middle-end/65686] [4.9 regression] inconsistent warning maybe-uninitialized: warn about 'unsigned', not warn about 'int'

#1 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko dimhen at gmail dot com --- gcc version 4.9.3 20150412 (prerelease) [gcc-4_9-branch revision 222021] (GCC) PASS

[Bug libstdc++/60519] Debug mode should check comparators for irreflexivity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60519 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to François Dumont from comment #2) So yes it doubles the number of comparisons which is definitely a Well actually your patch doesn't double the number, because you only

[Bug libstdc++/60519] Debug mode should check comparators for irreflexivity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60519 --- Comment #2 from François Dumont fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 35305 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35305action=edit Strict weak ordering debug check patch On my side here what I had plan to do. This

[Bug libstdc++/60519] Debug mode should check comparators for irreflexivity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60519 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3) Your patch checks for antisymmetry instead, which is also required for a strict weak order, but is a different property. Maybe we

[Bug ipa/65701] [5/6 Regression] r221530 makes 187.facerec drop with -Ofast -flto on bdver2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65701 --- Comment #16 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- However the spec score seems to indicate that well over half of the performance gap is gone by the vectorizer change. Good ;)