[Bug testsuite/65940] New: g++.dg/other/anon5.C requires dwarf4 support in ld

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65940 Bug ID: 65940 Summary: g++.dg/other/anon5.C requires dwarf4 support in ld Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: trivial Priority: P3

[Bug testsuite/65940] g++.dg/other/anon5.C requires dwarf4 support in ld

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65940 --- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- unix/: FAIL: g++.dg/other/anon5.C -std=gnu++11 (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/other/anon5.C -std=gnu++14 (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/other/anon5.C -std=gnu++98 (test for excess

[Bug testsuite/65785] libgo TestIPv4MulticastListener test fails on machine with no network connection

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65785 --- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- ran into this again with new build and test

[Bug tree-optimization/65935] [6 Regression] 433.milc in SPEC CPU 2006 is miscompiled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65935 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot

[Bug c++/65936] [6 Regression] ICE building libboost_log.so.1.58.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65936 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug c/47043] allow deprecating enum values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47043 Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug lto/65559] [5/6 Regression] lto1.exe: internal compiler error: in read_cgraph_and_symbols, at lto/lto.c:2947

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559 Matt Breedlove breedlove.matt at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug libstdc++/65942] [5/6 Regression] [C++14] cannot use std::function as comparator in algorithms

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65942 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid

[Bug libstdc++/65942] [5/6 Regression] [C++14] cannot use std::function as comparator in algorithms

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65942 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- It's due to the addition of C++14 constexpr throughout the library, the program works if preceded by #include bits/c++config.h #undef _GLIBCXX14_CONSTEXPR #define

[Bug c++/65942] [5/6 Regression] [C++14] cannot use std::function as comparator in algorithms

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65942 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Component|libstdc++ |c++ ---

[Bug target/65697] __atomic memory barriers not strong enough for __sync builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697 --- Comment #48 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #47) Created attachment 35425 [details] potential patch to add MEMMODEL_SYNC I don't know where we've finally settled on this, but I did prototype

[Bug testsuite/65941] FAIL: g++.dg/other/pr59492.C: no such instruction: rdrand

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65941 --- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Fail in same testcase also observed at: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2015-04/msg02807.html .

[Bug libstdc++/65942] New: cannot use std::function as comparator in algorithms

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65942 Bug ID: 65942 Summary: cannot use std::function as comparator in algorithms Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: critical Priority: P3

[Bug c++/65943] New: template keyword required for base-specifier that names member of the current instantiation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65943 Bug ID: 65943 Summary: template keyword required for base-specifier that names member of the current instantiation Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/59955] Segmentation fault on (re?)defining a struct template as function template, when inside a struct tempate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59955 --- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Thu Apr 30 09:04:04 2015 New Revision: 222612 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222612root=gccview=rev Log: 2015-04-30 Paolo Carlini

[Bug tree-optimization/65935] [6 Regression] 433.milc in SPEC CPU 2006 is miscompiled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65935 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- I suppose r222514.

[Bug testsuite/65939] New: gcc.dg/torture/tls/run-ld.c execution failures with -pie

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65939 Bug ID: 65939 Summary: gcc.dg/torture/tls/run-ld.c execution failures with -pie Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: trivial

[Bug testsuite/65941] New: FAIL: g++.dg/other/pr59492.C: no such instruction: rdrand

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65941 Bug ID: 65941 Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/other/pr59492.C: no such instruction: rdrand Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: trivial

[Bug testsuite/65944] New: FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65276: undefined reference to std2::exception::~exception()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65944 Bug ID: 65944 Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65276: undefined reference to std2::exception::~exception() Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/59955] Segmentation fault on (re?)defining a struct template as function template, when inside a struct tempate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59955 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug testsuite/65938] New: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr56114.c: ambiguous operand size or operands invalid for movabs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65938 Bug ID: 65938 Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr56114.c: ambiguous operand size or operands invalid for movabs Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/59955] Segmentation fault on (re?)defining a struct template as function template, when inside a struct tempate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59955 --- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com --- This is already fixed in mainline, I'm adding the testcase and closing the bug.

[Bug target/65937] New: FAIL: gcc.target/arm/pr26702.c scan-assembler \\.size[\\t ]+static_foo, 4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65937 Bug ID: 65937 Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/arm/pr26702.c scan-assembler \\.size[\\t ]+static_foo, 4 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/65408] powerpc64 function argument passing may access invalid memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug target/65932] [5 Regression] Linux-3.10.75 on arm926ej-s does not boot due to wrong code generation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug target/58744] Illegal Memory Access on 3-byte packed struct ARCH: x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58744 Bug 58744 depends on bug 36043, which changed state. Bug 36043 Summary: gcc reads 8 bytes for a struct of size 6 which leads to sigsegv https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36043 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/65945] C++ alignment of nullptr_t is 1 and might cause unaligned stores to the frame

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65945 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug c++/57610] Reference initialized with temporary instead of sub-object of conversion result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57610 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot com|

[Bug c++/65942] [5/6 Regression] [C++14] cannot use std::function as comparator in algorithms

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65942 --- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Avi Kivity from comment #5) That's clang + libstdc++-5.1, so if the problem is in libstdc++, it's the same bug. Yes. clang++ -stdlib=libc++ -std=gnu++14

[Bug target/65932] [5 Regression] Linux-3.10.75 on arm926ej-s does not boot due to wrong code generation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932 Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug target/65408] powerpc64 function argument passing may access invalid memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408 Bug 65408 depends on bug 36043, which changed state. Bug 36043 Summary: gcc reads 8 bytes for a struct of size 6 which leads to sigsegv https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36043 What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/36043] gcc reads 8 bytes for a struct of size 6 which leads to sigsegv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36043 Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug target/58744] Illegal Memory Access on 3-byte packed struct ARCH: x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58744 Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug target/65408] powerpc64 function argument passing may access invalid memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408 Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug target/37954] odd sized packed structures passed by value, under ARM, cause lockup of application

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37954 Bug 37954 depends on bug 36043, which changed state. Bug 36043 Summary: gcc reads 8 bytes for a struct of size 6 which leads to sigsegv https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36043 What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/35226] Induction with multiplication are not vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35226 alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/57610] Reference initialized with temporary instead of sub-object of conversion result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57610 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/57610] Reference initialized with temporary instead of sub-object of conversion result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57610 --- Comment #13 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Thu Apr 30 09:43:39 2015 New Revision: 222615 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222615root=gccview=rev Log: 2015-04-30 Paolo Carlini

[Bug c++/65945] C++ alignment of nullptr_t is 1 and might cause unaligned stores to the frame

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65945 --- Comment #3 from npl at chello dot at --- I just checked the alignment of nullptr, and here seems to be the issue: the size of 4, while the alignment is 1. This will result in unaligned access should a nullptr be stored (storing a nullptr

[Bug target/59884] Unexpected warning pragma GCC target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59884 Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target||arm

[Bug c++/65942] [5/6 Regression] [C++14] cannot use std::function as comparator in algorithms

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65942 --- Comment #5 from Avi Kivity a...@cloudius-systems.com --- That's clang + libstdc++-5.1, so if the problem is in libstdc++, it's the same bug.

[Bug c++/65945] ARM: unaligned access when stroing nullptr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65945 --- Comment #1 from npl at chello dot at --- Created attachment 35430 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35430action=edit disassembly showing the issue The issue is the line dc: e50b3019str r3, [fp, #-25] ;

[Bug c++/59873] The value of char32_t U'\u0000' and char16_t u'\u0000' is 1, instead of 0.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59873 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/65942] [5/6 Regression] [C++14] cannot use std::function as comparator in algorithms

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65942 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- Yes, and so do 4.8 and 4.9 for this reduced form with no library dependencies. This fails with -std=c++11 but compiles OK with -std=c++11 -DOK. EDG accepts it without -DOK

[Bug c++/65942] [5/6 Regression] [C++14] cannot use std::function as comparator in algorithms

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65942 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7) Yes, and so do 4.8 and 4.9 That was in response to clang rejects your testcase, too.

[Bug c++/65945] New: ARM: unaligned access when stroing nullptr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65945 Bug ID: 65945 Summary: ARM: unaligned access when stroing nullptr Product: gcc Version: 4.8.4 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug preprocessor/53690] [C++11] \u0000 and \U00000000 are wrongly encoded as U+0001.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53690 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wjl at

[Bug middle-end/36043] gcc reads 8 bytes for a struct of size 6 which leads to sigsegv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36043 --- Comment #27 from John Dallman john.dallman at siemens dot com --- Thanks!

[Bug testsuite/65944] FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65276: undefined reference to std2::exception::~exception()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65944 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- The testcase is about not ICEing - eventually adding -nostdlib -r will still reproduce the original issue. Otherwise the fix is to properly complete the header parts of

[Bug c++/65945] ARM: unaligned access when stroing nullptr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65945 --- Comment #2 from npl at chello dot at --- Well, gcc 5.1 seems to reproduceable aswell, I just looked at the wrong line. There are 3 stores of the implicitely converted nullptr, gcc 4.8.4, gcc 4.9.2 and gcc 5.1 all produce one unaligned store -

[Bug libstdc++/65942] [5/6 Regression] [C++14] cannot use std::function as comparator in algorithms

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65942 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug middle-end/36043] gcc reads 8 bytes for a struct of size 6 which leads to sigsegv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36043 --- Comment #25 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: amodra Date: Thu Apr 30 11:11:34 2015 New Revision: 222616 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222616root=gccview=rev Log: gcc/ PR target/65408 PR

[Bug target/65408] powerpc64 function argument passing may access invalid memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65408 --- Comment #9 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: amodra Date: Thu Apr 30 11:11:34 2015 New Revision: 222616 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222616root=gccview=rev Log: gcc/ PR target/65408 PR target/58744

[Bug target/58744] Illegal Memory Access on 3-byte packed struct ARCH: x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58744 --- Comment #5 from Alan Modra amodra at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: amodra Date: Thu Apr 30 11:11:34 2015 New Revision: 222616 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222616root=gccview=rev Log: gcc/ PR target/65408 PR target/58744

[Bug tree-optimization/65935] [6 Regression] 433.milc in SPEC CPU 2006 is miscompiled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65935 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) I suppose r222514. Yes, it is.

[Bug tree-optimization/65948] New: [6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20101010-4 cp_lto_20101010-4_0.o-cp_lto_20101010-4_0.o link

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65948 Bug ID: 65948 Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20101010-4 cp_lto_20101010-4_0.o-cp_lto_20101010-4_0.o link Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/65935] [6 Regression] 433.milc in SPEC CPU 2006 is miscompiled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65935 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Also reproduces with -Ofast -march=bdver2 -m32 so I suppose -O3 -ffast-math -m32 -msse2 should also reproduce it. I wont get to look into this before Monday, any help in bisecting

[Bug tree-optimization/65935] [6 Regression] 433.milc in SPEC CPU 2006 is miscompiled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65935 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug lto/65559] [5/6 Regression] lto1.exe: internal compiler error: in read_cgraph_and_symbols, at lto/lto.c:2947

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559 --- Comment #20 from Rainer Emrich rai...@emrich-ebersheim.de --- Kai, (In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #18) Does the following patch fixes your problem? Index: lto-wrapper.c

[Bug middle-end/65946] New: Simple loop with if-statement not vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65946 Bug ID: 65946 Summary: Simple loop with if-statement not vectorized Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug testsuite/65205] Wrong dg-shouldfail usage in OpenACC libgomp tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65205 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: tschwinge Date: Thu Apr 30 12:44:39 2015 New Revision: 222620 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222620root=gccview=rev Log: [PR testsuite/65205] Fix dg-shouldfail

[Bug testsuite/65205] Wrong dg-shouldfail usage in OpenACC libgomp tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65205 Thomas Schwinge tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug middle-end/65946] Simple loop with if-statement not vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65946 alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last

[Bug middle-end/65947] New: Vectorizer misses conditional assignment of constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65947 Bug ID: 65947 Summary: Vectorizer misses conditional assignment of constant Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/65948] [6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20101010-4 cp_lto_20101010-4_0.o-cp_lto_20101010-4_0.o link

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65948 --- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: hubicka Date: Thu Apr 30 13:18:22 2015 New Revision: 222621 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222621root=gccview=rev Log: PR lto/65948 * ipa-devirt.c

[Bug middle-end/65874] [5 Regression] bootstrap comparison failure (gcc/ira.o) on ia64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65874 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot

[Bug middle-end/65947] Vectorizer misses conditional assignment of constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65947 alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last

[Bug tree-optimization/65948] [6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20101010-4 cp_lto_20101010-4_0.o-cp_lto_20101010-4_0.o link

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65948 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC|hubicka at ucw dot cz

[Bug c++/65942] [5/6 Regression] [C++14] cannot use std::function as comparator in algorithms

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65942 Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug middle-end/64729] gcc.dg/stackprotectexplicit1.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64729 --- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: ro Date: Thu Apr 30 14:50:26 2015 New Revision: 222631 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222631root=gccview=rev Log: Add missing PR middle-end/64729 reference. Modified:

[Bug ada/65476] Long_Float array does not byte-swap correctly with reverse Scalar_Storage_Order

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65476 --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: ebotcazou Date: Thu Apr 30 15:01:49 2015 New Revision: 222633 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222633root=gccview=rev Log: PR ada/65476 * fold-const.c

[Bug ada/65476] Long_Float array does not byte-swap correctly with reverse Scalar_Storage_Order

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65476 Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug c++/65949] New: Compiler can not deduce auto type in lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65949 Bug ID: 65949 Summary: Compiler can not deduce auto type in lambda Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug lto/65559] [5/6 Regression] lto1.exe: internal compiler error: in read_cgraph_and_symbols, at lto/lto.c:2947

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559 --- Comment #25 from Rainer Emrich rai...@emrich-ebersheim.de --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #24) Note that the issue should only cause option merging to be skipped for files in archives (and that, too, on x86_64-linux). Though

[Bug lto/65559] [5/6 Regression] lto1.exe: internal compiler error: in read_cgraph_and_symbols, at lto/lto.c:2947

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559 --- Comment #23 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- The patch looks pretty obvious to me - though I wonder if archives still work on x86_64-linux after it (or rather I wonder how they worked before...). I'm not aware of @ doing

[Bug target/65582] [5/6 Regression] testsuite lto issue: xgcc.exe: warning: '-x lto' after last input file has no effect, fatal error: no input files

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65582 Rainer Emrich rai...@emrich-ebersheim.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug web/64968] Upgrade GCC Bugzilla to 5.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968 --- Comment #27 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org --- Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: rai...@emrich-ebersheim.de gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org Newsgroups:

[Bug c++/65945] C++ alignment of nullptr_t is 1 and might cause unaligned stores to the frame

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65945 --- Comment #5 from npl at chello dot at --- making nullptr_t similar to void* would sound very reasonable to me. I tested clang and it seems to behave that way. Whatever the C++ ABI group comes up with, the unaligned accesses have to be fixed.

[Bug lto/65559] [5/6 Regression] lto1.exe: internal compiler error: in read_cgraph_and_symbols, at lto/lto.c:2947

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559 --- Comment #22 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org --- I will be able to test this tomorrow (or this evening) for a linux bootstrap. Patch tested is: Index: lto-wrapper.c ===

[Bug c++/65876] [5/6 Regression] [C++11] ICE in cxx_eval_call_expression, at cp/constexpr.c:1358

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65876 --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jason Date: Thu Apr 30 14:19:24 2015 New Revision: 222628 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222628root=gccview=rev Log: PR c++/65876 * constexpr.c

[Bug lto/65559] [5/6 Regression] lto1.exe: internal compiler error: in read_cgraph_and_symbols, at lto/lto.c:2947

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559 --- Comment #24 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Note that the issue should only cause option merging to be skipped for files in archives (and that, too, on x86_64-linux). Though compared to the 4.9 branch we do fd =

[Bug target/64835] -fno-ipa-cp is inconsitently supported when attributes optimize or target are used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64835 --- Comment #5 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #1) The problem is that in the testcase iinline-1.c as it is in the testsuite, we use -fno-ipa-cp on the command line so that the interprocedural phase of

[Bug c++/65945] C++ alignment of nullptr_t is 1 and might cause unaligned stores to the frame

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65945 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org --- How did you configure your gcc? If it is configured for armv7 or above, gcc defaults to assuming unaligned accesses can be done. This is a faq.

[Bug lto/65559] [5/6 Regression] lto1.exe: internal compiler error: in read_cgraph_and_symbols, at lto/lto.c:2947

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559 --- Comment #21 from Rainer Emrich rai...@emrich-ebersheim.de --- *** Bug 65582 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug target/64835] -fno-ipa-cp is inconsitently supported when attributes optimize or target are used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64835 --- Comment #4 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org --- yes, I thought that this test was target independent. tested on x86, arm, sh4. I'll checking what happens with aarch64

[Bug c++/65945] C++ alignment of nullptr_t is 1 and might cause unaligned stores to the frame

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65945 --- Comment #6 from npl at chello dot at --- btw... there seems to be a logical fallacy in the way gcc produces stores anyway. if a type has size 4 and alignment 1 (like a struct with 4 chars), shouldn`t the compiler generate byte-writes? Just

[Bug c++/65876] [6 Regression] [C++11] ICE in cxx_eval_call_expression, at cp/constexpr.c:1358

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65876 Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[5/6 Regression] [C++11]|[6 Regression]

[Bug target/65931] [5/6 regression] dsymutil assertion failure building libgnat-5.dylib

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65931 Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

[Bug web/64968] Upgrade GCC Bugzilla to 5.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968 --- Comment #28 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net --- Maybe is this a coincidence, but all bugmails I found which have a wrong timestamp have something in common. First of all, the offset is *always* the same: -05:30. Then, it

[Bug target/65952] New: [AArch64] Will not vectorize copying pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65952 Bug ID: 65952 Summary: [AArch64] Will not vectorize copying pointers Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/63551] [4.9/5 Regression] wrong code (segfaults) at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63551 --- Comment #14 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: mpolacek Date: Thu Apr 30 18:01:07 2015 New Revision: 222650 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222650root=gccview=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/63551 *

[Bug target/65185] avr-gcc mcus.def missing rfr2 devices

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65185 Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target||avr

[Bug tree-optimization/63551] [4.9/5 Regression] wrong code (segfaults) at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63551 --- Comment #15 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: mpolacek Date: Thu Apr 30 18:03:53 2015 New Revision: 222651 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222651root=gccview=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/63551 *

[Bug c++/65954] New: gcc segfaults on the following input with a syntax error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65954 Bug ID: 65954 Summary: gcc segfaults on the following input with a syntax error Product: gcc Version: 4.8.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor

[Bug lto/65950] Loop is not vectorized with lto.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65950 --- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com --- Created attachment 35432 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35432action=edit test-case to reproduce Must be compiled with -Ofast and -fopenmp options.

[Bug rtl-optimization/65932] [5 Regression] Linux-3.10.75 on arm926ej-s does not boot due to wrong code generation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65932 Christian Eggers ceggers at gmx dot de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ceggers at gmx

[Bug tree-optimization/63551] [4.9/5 Regression] wrong code (segfaults) at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63551 --- Comment #16 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: mpolacek Date: Thu Apr 30 18:05:34 2015 New Revision: 222652 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222652root=gccview=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/63551 *

[Bug tree-optimization/65953] [5/6 Regression] undefined reference to static __thread variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65953 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/65801] [5/6 Regression] Allow -Wno-narrowing to silence stricter C++11 narrowing rules

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65801 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug lto/65559] [5/6 Regression] lto1.exe: internal compiler error: in read_cgraph_and_symbols, at lto/lto.c:2947

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559 --- Comment #26 from Rainer Emrich rai...@emrich-ebersheim.de --- (In reply to Rainer Emrich from comment #25) (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #24) Note that the issue should only cause option merging to be skipped for files in

  1   2   >