[Bug c++/67354] [5/6 regression] internal compiler error: in add_to_same_comdat_group, at symtab.c:421

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67354 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org Target Mil

[Bug target/67351] Missed optimisation on 64-bit field compared to 32-bit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67351 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug debug/67355] [5 Regression] ICE compiling LTP testcase, endless cselib recursion from var-tracking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67355 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Hmm, I can't reproduce with my FSF 5.1 or 5.2 builds (release checking) but I can reproduce with my current GCC 5 branch development build (checking enabled): > /abuild/rguenther/gcc5-g/gcc/cc1 -quiet -O2 -

[Bug debug/67355] [5 Regression] ICE compiling LTP testcase, endless cselib recursion from var-tracking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67355 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||i?86-*-* Target Milestone|---

[Bug debug/67355] [5 Regression] ICE compiling LTP testcase, endless cselib recursion from var-tracking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67355 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org --- Co

[Bug debug/67355] New: [5 Regression] ICE compiling LTP testcase

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67355 Bug ID: 67355 Summary: [5 Regression] ICE compiling LTP testcase Product: gcc Version: 5.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: debug

[Bug c++/67354] [5/6 regression] internal compiler error: in add_to_same_comdat_group, at symtab.c:421

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67354 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/67219] [6 Regression] Incorrect conversion warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67219 Joost VandeVondele changed: What|Removed |Added CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz

[Bug c++/67354] New: internal compiler error: in add_to_same_comdat_group, at symtab.c:421

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67354 Bug ID: 67354 Summary: internal compiler error: in add_to_same_comdat_group, at symtab.c:421 Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/63510] Wrong line number in Wstrict-overflow message

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510 --- Comment #8 from Chen Gang --- For the latest gcc, it still has this issue, I shall try to fix it during these days (hope can fix it within this month). Thanks.

[Bug middle-end/67330] ICE handling weak attributes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67330 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/67330] ICE handling weak attributes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67330 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Tue Aug 25 20:28:59 2015 New Revision: 227190 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227190&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR middle-end/67330 * varasm.c (declare_weak): Return a

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60519 --- Comment #5 from François Dumont --- Author: fdumont Date: Tue Aug 25 20:27:03 2015 New Revision: 227189 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227189&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-08-24 François Dumont PR libstdc++/60519 * in

[Bug target/67346] PowerPC: could not split insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67346 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/67341] [ICE] libgo build failure: in mark_stmt_if_obviously_necessary, at tree-ssa-dce.c:278

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67341 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/67341] [ICE] libgo build failure: in mark_stmt_if_obviously_necessary, at tree-ssa-dce.c:278

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67341 --- Comment #3 from Gary Funck --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2) > Gary, could you please try this again? I'd hope this has really been fixed > with my recentish Go patch. Confirmed - fixed.

[Bug target/67344] PowerPC unrecognizable insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67344 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/67346] PowerPC: could not split insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67346 --- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool --- Author: segher Date: Tue Aug 25 19:35:15 2015 New Revision: 227183 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227183&root=gcc&view=rev Log: rs6000: Fix PR67346 "*ior_mask" is a define_insn_and_split, so it s

[Bug target/67344] PowerPC unrecognizable insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67344 --- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool --- Author: segher Date: Tue Aug 25 19:32:28 2015 New Revision: 227182 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227182&root=gcc&view=rev Log: rs6000: Fix PR67344 The "*and3_imm_dot_shifted" pattern is a define

[Bug target/67353] [avr] Option-ize Warning "appears to be a misspelled signal / interrupt handler"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67353 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P5 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/67353] New: [avr] Option-ize Warning "appears to be a misspelled signal / interrupt handler"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67353 Bug ID: 67353 Summary: [avr] Option-ize Warning "appears to be a misspelled signal / interrupt handler" Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords

[Bug target/67317] [x86] Silly code generation for _addcarry_u32/_addcarry_u64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67317 --- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool --- Combine can handle most RTL expressions, although it sometimes simplifies (or "simplifies") more than you want. I think in this case what is already done in *add3_cc_overflow will work well, but I do no

[Bug target/67352] [avr] incorrect warning with -Waddr-space-convert and array in struct in __flash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67352 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/67352] [avr] incorrect warning with -Waddr-space-convert and array in struct in __flash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67352 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/67352] New: [avr] incorrect warning with -Waddr-space-convert and array in struct in __flash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67352 Bug ID: 67352 Summary: [avr] incorrect warning with -Waddr-space-convert and array in struct in __flash Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords

[Bug target/67351] Missed optimisation on 64-bit field compared to 32-bit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67351 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Oh his patch only handled multiplies/divide and not shifts. But it should be easy to add them to match.pd to simplify this at the tree level.

[Bug target/67351] Missed optimisation on 64-bit field compared to 32-bit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67351 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3) > (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2) > > (In reply to Allan Jensen from comment #0) > > > > > Gcc will expand and detect field setting on 32-bit integers, but

[Bug target/67351] Missed optimisation on 64-bit field compared to 32-bit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67351 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/67317] [x86] Silly code generation for _addcarry_u32/_addcarry_u64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67317 --- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #3) > Does this need to be an unspec at all? Of course not. We are looking to replace unspecs with standard RTXes. Do you have any recommendation on how we can rep

[Bug middle-end/64544] ../../gcc-svn/gcc/cgraphunit.c:2183:1: internal compiler error: in check_probability, at basic-block.h:581

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64544 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/67351] Missed optimisation on 64-bit field compared to 32-bit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67351 --- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Allan Jensen from comment #0) > Gcc will expand and detect field setting on 32-bit integers, but for some > reason miss the opportunity on 64-bit. The immediates for 64bit logic insns are limited

[Bug target/67296] [HSA] ICE in register allocator (assignment of this argument in a ctor)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67296 Michael Matz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/67296] [HSA] ICE in register allocator (assignment of this argument in a ctor)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67296 --- Comment #1 from Michael Matz --- Author: matz Date: Tue Aug 25 16:02:38 2015 New Revision: 227176 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227176&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/67272 PR target/67296 * hsa.h (hsa_functio

[Bug target/67272] [HSA] register allocator expects that every register must be assigned

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67272 --- Comment #5 from Michael Matz --- Author: matz Date: Tue Aug 25 16:02:38 2015 New Revision: 227176 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227176&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/67272 PR target/67296 * hsa.h (hsa_functio

[Bug middle-end/67351] New: Missed optimisation on 64-bit field compared to 32-bit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67351 Bug ID: 67351 Summary: Missed optimisation on 64-bit field compared to 32-bit Product: gcc Version: 5.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3

[Bug middle-end/67351] Missed optimisation on 64-bit field compared to 32-bit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67351 --- Comment #1 from Allan Jensen --- Created attachment 36254 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36254&action=edit Compiled test assembler

[Bug middle-end/67330] ICE handling weak attributes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67330 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug middle-end/67005] [5/6 Regression] ICE: in verify_loop_structure, at cfgloop.c:1647 (loop with header n not in loop tree)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67005 --- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #6) > Hm, adding || (e2->flags & EDGE_IRREDUCIBLE_LOOP) doesn't work; the E2 edge > doesn't have the EDGE_IRREDUCIBLE_LOOP flag, even if I recompute that flag > via mar

[Bug tree-optimization/66372] [6 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66372 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/67253] [6 Regression] ICE at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu (verify_gimple failed)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67253 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/67328] range test rather than single bit test for code testing enum values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67328 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #3 from Alan Modra --- May

[Bug libfortran/48511] Implement Steele-White algorithm for numeric output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48511 Francois-Xavier Coudert changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug target/67317] [x86] Silly code generation for _addcarry_u32/_addcarry_u64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67317 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug middle-end/67005] [5/6 Regression] ICE: in verify_loop_structure, at cfgloop.c:1647 (loop with header n not in loop tree)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67005 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- Hm, adding || (e2->flags & EDGE_IRREDUCIBLE_LOOP) doesn't work; the E2 edge doesn't have the EDGE_IRREDUCIBLE_LOOP flag, even if I recompute that flag via mark_irreducible_loops. So maybe set LOOPS_NEED_FIXU

[Bug middle-end/67005] [5/6 Regression] ICE: in verify_loop_structure, at cfgloop.c:1647 (loop with header n not in loop tree)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67005 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug middle-end/67341] [ICE] libgo build failure: in mark_stmt_if_obviously_necessary, at tree-ssa-dce.c:278

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67341 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/10837] noreturn attribute causes no sibling calling optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10837 --- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #2) > Working as designed. > (1) It often takes more insns to pop the stack frame than to make the call. > (2) You get a proper backtrace from abort. > (3) http://gcc.gn

[Bug target/67317] [x86] Silly code generation for _addcarry_u32/_addcarry_u64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67317 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Target|

[Bug tree-optimization/67306] Patterns ICEs when moved using "simplify and match"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67306 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/67306] Patterns ICEs when moved using "simplify and match"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67306 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Tue Aug 25 10:29:09 2015 New Revision: 227163 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227163&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-08-25 Richard Biener PR middle-end/67306 * gen

[Bug tree-optimization/67323] Use non-unit stride loads by preference when applicable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67323 --- Comment #4 from Michael Collison --- Hi Richard, No I do not have a fix now. Thanks for the info on the policy. On 08/25/2015 03:05 AM, rguenther at suse dot de wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67323 > > --- Comment #3

[Bug tree-optimization/67323] Use non-unit stride loads by preference when applicable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67323 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, michael.collison at linaro dot org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67323 > > --- Comment #2 from Michael Collison --- > Richard, > > Should I create a

[Bug tree-optimization/67323] Use non-unit stride loads by preference when applicable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67323 --- Comment #2 from Michael Collison --- Richard, Should I create a test case that fails until you resolve this in GCC 6? On 08/25/2015 02:14 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67323 > > Richard

[Bug c++/67345] -Woverloaded-virtual false negative: Does not warn on overloaded virtual function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67345 --- Comment #2 from EisahLee at gmx dot de --- I see the hiding as a potential "design error", or however that is called: A shortcoming of the way the methods were named. Clang 4.5 does not warn until there is such a "bad" call. Is there a compi

[Bug tree-optimization/67326] [5/6 Regression] -ftree-loop-if-convert-stores does not vectorize conditional assignment (anymore)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67326 vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org -

[Bug testsuite/67203] [6 regression] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr61034.C -std=gnu++11 scan-tree-dump-times fre2 "free" 10

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67203 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Bah, so this boils down to PUSH_ARGS_REVERSED and its affect on gimplification and thus initial GIMPLE. In this case PUSH_ARGS_REVERSED == 1 "wins". (for the operator- calls code for b * c and c * d is emit

[Bug c++/67315] [4.9 Regression] Strange 'this' pointer behavior when calling virtual function with different optimization attributes.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67315 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug c++/67350] New: auto deduction error in variable template lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67350 Bug ID: 67350 Summary: auto deduction error in variable template lambda Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/67323] Use non-unit stride loads by preference when applicable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67323 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/66038] [5 regression] (stage 2) build/genmatch issue (gcc/hash-table.h|c) with --disable-checking [ introduced by r218976 ]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038 --- Comment #28 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, kumba at gentoo dot org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038 > > --- Comment #27 from Joshua Kinard --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2

[Bug middle-end/67005] [5/6 Regression] ICE: in verify_loop_structure, at cfgloop.c:1647 (loop with header n not in loop tree)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67005 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- Note we already do /* If we made a BB unconditionally exit a loop then this transform alters the set of BBs in the loop. Schedule a fixup. */ if (loop

[Bug middle-end/67005] [5/6 Regression] ICE: in verify_loop_structure, at cfgloop.c:1647 (loop with header n not in loop tree)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67005 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Yeah, though "somewhere" would be all the time if we and up removing an edge. I've meant to see whether we can restrict it to "removed an edge with IRREDUCIBLE_LOOP flag set, but then we'd have to compute th

[Bug middle-end/66984] ICE: fold_binary changes type of operand, causing failure in verify_gimple_assign_binary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66984 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug bootstrap/66038] [5 regression] (stage 2) build/genmatch issue (gcc/hash-table.h|c) with --disable-checking [ introduced by r218976 ]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038 --- Comment #27 from Joshua Kinard --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #26) > Don't hold your breath. Basically somebody who can reproduce it has to find > the root-cause and a fix. 4.9.3 works, and the problem appears specific to genm

[Bug middle-end/67005] [5/6 Regression] ICE: in verify_loop_structure, at cfgloop.c:1647 (loop with header n not in loop tree)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67005 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/67315] [4.9 Regression] Strange 'this' pointer behavior when calling virtual function with different optimization attributes.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67315 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- PR 54068 ?

[Bug debug/67293] Very large DW_AT_const_value produced

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67293 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > I'm fine with introducing some limit on the size of const values, with a > param. > As for the other question, I think you've answered that yourself, > if the co

[Bug middle-end/67298] [6 Regression] 254.gap in SPEC CPU 2000 is miscompiled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67298 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/67340] [6 Regression] ICE: in convert_move, at expr.c:279

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67340 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||hppa*-*-* CC|

[Bug c++/67318] [6 regression] Parsing error when using abbreviated integral type names in template parameter pack declaration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67318 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug middle-end/67118] gcc and gfortran started crashing recently

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67118 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/67326] [5/6 Regression] -ftree-loop-if-convert-stores does not vectorize conditional assignment (anymore)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67326 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords|

[Bug tree-optimization/67328] range test rather than single bit test for code testing enum values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67328 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/67312] [6 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in expand_expr_real_1 (expr.c:9561) with -ftree-coalesce-vars

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67312 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener

[Bug c++/67313] [6 Regression] ICE: in vague_linkage_p, at cp/decl2.c:1878 with -fno-weak and variadic template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67313 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug c++/67315] [4.9 Regression] Strange 'this' pointer behavior when calling virtual function with different optimization attributes.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67315 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/67315] [4.9 Regression] Strange 'this' pointer behavior when calling virtual function with different optimization attributes.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67315 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4

[Bug inline-asm/67317] [x86] Silly code generation for _addcarry_u32/_addcarry_u64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67317 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/66038] [5 regression] (stage 2) build/genmatch issue (gcc/hash-table.h|c) with --disable-checking [ introduced by r218976 ]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target|powerpc-darwin |powerpc-darwin, |

[Bug tree-optimization/37021] Fortran Complex reduction / multiplication not vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37021 --- Comment #21 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #20) > We still don't vectorize the original code example on Power. It appears > that this is being disabled because of an alignment issue. The data > references are

[Bug middle-end/67341] [ICE] libgo build failure: in mark_stmt_if_obviously_necessary, at tree-ssa-dce.c:278

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67341 Mikhail Maltsev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/67055] [5 Regression] Segmentation fault in fold_builtin_alloca_with_align in tree-ssa-ccp.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[5/6 Regression]|[5 Regression] Segmentation

[Bug tree-optimization/67349] [5 regression] ICE on optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67349 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/67055] [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault in fold_builtin_alloca_with_align in tree-ssa-ccp.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ysato at users dot sourceforge.jp

[Bug tree-optimization/67349] [5 regression] ICE on optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67349 --- Comment #3 from Yoshinori Sato --- I tested gcc version 6.0.0 20150710 (experimental) (GCC) I'll trying latest trunk. Thanks,

[Bug tree-optimization/67349] [5 regression] ICE on optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67349 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Target|h8300 | Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/67349] ICE on optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67349 Mikhail Maltsev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment