[Bug c/67668] erroneous type argument for unary operator one's complement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67668 --- Comment #4 from BENAÏSSA ---   Thank you for your quick and clear reply .   Note:    I think that using the same symbol operator for doing two different things    can be a potential source of blind errors.    I confirm that this is only a

[Bug c++/67684] [concepts] friend access not working with constrained function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67684 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/59124] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong warnings "array subscript is above array bounds"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124 --- Comment #32 from baoshan --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #30) > (In reply to baoshan from comment #29) > > > However, it is clear that _14 = baz[_9] is executed only 5 times (not 5 > > > times + 1). Why is this estimate

[Bug c++/67684] New: [concepts] friend access not working with constrained function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67684 Bug ID: 67684 Summary: [concepts] friend access not working with constrained function Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/67677] New: [6 Regression] r226005 causes "Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67677 Bug ID: 67677 Summary: [6 Regression] r226005 causes "Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)" Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/67666] single restrict pointer in struct looses restrict

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67666 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #3 from

[Bug middle-end/67649] trunk build with valgrind fail in get_def_blocks_for

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67649 --- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- A gave your patch a quick spin on gcc112 (compile farm machine). It fixes the issue.

[Bug bootstrap/67598] [6 Regression] Target powerpc-e500v2-linux-gnuspe failed to bootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67598 --- Comment #1 from Arseny Solokha --- (In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #0) > I still have to find out > when the issue have started showing up, given that I now have half a year > wide window. 6.0.0-alpha20150802 snapshot bootstraps

[Bug libgomp/67141] wrong libgomp mutex initialisation order

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67141 --- Comment #6 from Chung-Lin Tang --- Author: cltang Date: Tue Sep 22 06:45:22 2015 New Revision: 227994 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227994=gcc=rev Log: 2015-09-22 Chung-Lin Tang PR libgomp/67141

[Bug c/67680] Seg Fault in gcc 4.9.3 compiling libiberty/floatformat.c when building gcc 5.2.1 on Cygwin 64 on Windows

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67680 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/67682] New: Missed vectorization: (another) straight-line memcpy/memset not vectorized when equivalent loop is

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67682 Bug ID: 67682 Summary: Missed vectorization: (another) straight-line memcpy/memset not vectorized when equivalent loop is Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/67679] -Wunitialized reports on compiler generated variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67679 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/67680] New: Seg Fault in gcc 4.9.3 compiling libiberty/floatformat.c when building gcc 5.2.1 on Cygwin 64 on Windows

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67680 Bug ID: 67680 Summary: Seg Fault in gcc 4.9.3 compiling libiberty/floatformat.c when building gcc 5.2.1 on Cygwin 64 on Windows Product: gcc Version: 4.9.3

[Bug tree-optimization/67681] New: Missed vectorization: induction variable used after loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67681 Bug ID: 67681 Summary: Missed vectorization: induction variable used after loop Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/67667] erroneous type argument for unary operator one's complement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67667 --- Comment #2 from BENAÏSSA ---   Thank you for your quick and clear reply .   Note:    I think that using the same symbol operato as GNU extension for doing two different things    can be a potential source of blind errors .    I confirm that

[Bug target/61578] [4.9 regression] Code size increase for ARM thumb compared to 4.8.x when compiling with -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578 Dominik Vogt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---

[Bug target/67391] [SH] Convert clrt addc to normal add insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391 Oleg Endo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug c++/53856] Default argument allowed on member defined outside of class template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53856 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/61578] [4.9 regression] Code size increase for ARM thumb compared to 4.8.x when compiling with -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578 --- Comment #28 from Dominik Vogt --- Created attachment 36371 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36371=edit Outpout of the reload pass (BAD) The full output of the reload pass on S/390, showing the behaviour described in

[Bug c/65405] improve locations of diagnostics in c-pragma.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65405 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/67683] New: Missed vectorization: shifts of an induction variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67683 Bug ID: 67683 Summary: Missed vectorization: shifts of an induction variable Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug c/67688] New: [MinGW/Cygwin] Attributes selectany and section cannot be used together

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67688 Bug ID: 67688 Summary: [MinGW/Cygwin] Attributes selectany and section cannot be used together Product: gcc Version: 5.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/67391] [SH] Convert clrt addc to normal add insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391 --- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima --- (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #1) > Kaz, do you have any memory of the extra checks? Isn't it enough to just > accept the addsi3 pattern as "rC = rA + {rB|imm}" and insert the reg-reg > copy after

[Bug tree-optimization/67689] New: wrong code at -O1, -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

-multilib Thread model: posix gcc version 6.0.0 20150922 (experimental) [trunk revision 228013] (GCC) $ $ gcc-trunk -O0 small.c; ./a.out $ gcc-5.2 -O1 small.c; ./a.out $ $ gcc-trunk -O1 small.c $ ./a.out Aborted $ -- int a, b, c = 1, d, e; void fn1 () { e

[Bug target/67391] [SH] Convert clrt addc to normal add insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391 --- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #3) > > Ugh, those checks look just wrong and I can't remind why I've > added them. 33707 didn't do that and checked overlapping at > the split condition only.

[Bug target/67391] [SH] Convert clrt addc to normal add insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391 --- Comment #5 from Kazumoto Kojima --- (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #4) > I've just checked, the code is also present in GCC 5. Because of the funny > side effects even with LRA disabled (this PR) I'd like to backport this to > the GCC

[Bug middle-end/67649] trunk build with valgrind fail in get_def_blocks_for

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67649 --- Comment #11 from Mikhail Maltsev --- Author: miyuki Date: Wed Sep 23 02:31:14 2015 New Revision: 228033 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228033=gcc=rev Log: Fix use of valgrind API gcc/ PR middle-end/67649 *

[Bug middle-end/67649] trunk build with valgrind fail in get_def_blocks_for

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67649 --- Comment #12 from Mikhail Maltsev --- (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #10) > A gave your patch a quick spin on gcc112 (compile farm machine). > It fixes the issue. Thanks, Markus. I committed the fix.

[Bug target/67391] [SH] Convert clrt addc to normal add insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391 --- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo --- Created attachment 36373 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36373=edit Proposed patch Tested on sh-elf, LRA enabled, with make -k check

[Bug debug/67192] Backward-goto in loop can get wrong line number

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67192 --- Comment #12 from Patrick Palka --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #10) > (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #8) > > Does GCC work at all if input_location is saved and restored in > > c_parser_peek_token? I guess

[Bug libstdc++/55815] switch hash function of libstdc++ hash tables to siphash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55815 --- Comment #5 from felix-glibc at fefe dot de --- How about you add SipHash and make it selectable at runtime. Then I can file security bugs against all relevant programs not selecting it for being vulnerable and glibc has their ass covered

[Bug tree-optimization/67690] New: wrong code with -O2 on x86_64/Linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67690 Bug ID: 67690 Summary: wrong code with -O2 on x86_64/Linux Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/67690] wrong code with -O2 on x86_64/Linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67690 --- Comment #1 from Erik Volk --- Created attachment 36375 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36375=edit full output from gcc -v

[Bug tree-optimization/59124] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong warnings "array subscript is above array bounds"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124 --- Comment #33 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to baoshan from comment #32) > And I think it is not wrong, it's just inaccurate, and it is not making any > wrong result in running time. > > Can you point me how to proceed? To be

[Bug c++/67685] New: ICE on invalid requires expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67685 Bug ID: 67685 Summary: ICE on invalid requires expression Product: gcc Version: c++-concepts Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c/48885] missed optimization with restrict qualifier?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug libstdc++/55815] switch hash function of libstdc++ hash tables to siphash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55815 Geoff Pike changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gpike at google dot com --- Comment #4

[Bug rtl-optimization/67604] shrink-wrap doesn't allow multiple entries

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67604 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/55815] switch hash function of libstdc++ hash tables to siphash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55815 Mikhail Maltsev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/67692] New: [concepts] ICE when using requires in non-concept contexts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67692 Bug ID: 67692 Summary: [concepts] ICE when using requires in non-concept contexts Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/67680] Seg Fault in gcc 4.9.3 compiling libiberty/floatformat.c when building gcc 5.2.1 on Cygwin 64 on Windows

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67680 Brian Plummer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bplummer at hotmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c/67680] Seg Fault in gcc 4.9.3 compiling libiberty/floatformat.c when building gcc 5.2.1 on Cygwin 64 on Windows

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67680 --- Comment #3 from Brian Plummer --- As requested.

[Bug target/67691] New: [SH] Omit zero extension of shift amounds for dynamic shifts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67691 Bug ID: 67691 Summary: [SH] Omit zero extension of shift amounds for dynamic shifts Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/67680] Seg Fault in gcc 4.9.3 compiling libiberty/floatformat.c when building gcc 5.2.1 on Cygwin 64 on Windows

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67680 --- Comment #4 from Brian Plummer --- I had these comments in my message, but they got lost when I added my attachment. floatformat.preprocessed.c was created with this command : Brian@MBPWin7-64 ~/gnu/gcc/gcc-5.2.0/libiberty $ gcc -E -c

[Bug target/67321] [ARM] Exploit Wide Add operations when appropriate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67321 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/66454] Common -Wmisleading-indentation false-positive triggered in the Linux kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66454 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/67686] New: [concepts] segfault in finish_call_expr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67686 Bug ID: 67686 Summary: [concepts] segfault in finish_call_expr function Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/66755] [ARM] TARGET_ASM_OUTPUT_MI_THUNK should be rewritten to an RTL implementation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66755 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/67687] New: [c++0x][constexpr] initialize constexpr member with constexpr constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67687 Bug ID: 67687 Summary: [c++0x][constexpr] initialize constexpr member with constexpr constructor Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug rtl-optimization/67676] Implicit alignment of struct not applied to members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67676 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/62171] restrict pointer to struct with restrict pointers parm doesn't prevent aliases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62171 --- Comment #8 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7) > I was thinking about sth like > > struct X { int i; int * __restrict__ q; }; > > int foo (X& __restrict__ x, X *p) > { > *x.q = 1; > p->i = 0; >

[Bug target/67677] [6 Regression] r226005 causes "Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67677 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug tree-optimization/66952] [6 Regression] wrong code at -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66952 --- Comment #10 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Tue Sep 22 07:47:21 2015 New Revision: 227995 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227995=gcc=rev Log: 2015-09-22 Richard Biener Backport from mainline

[Bug tree-optimization/67671] restrict pointer reference looses restrict

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67671 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- I think the patch is reasonable.

[Bug bootstrap/67672] [6 regression] Ada "Storage_Error stack overflow or erroneous memory access" error breaks sparc-linux bootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67672 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug bootstrap/67622] [6 regression] Solaris/SPARC bootstrap fails compiling stage2 stdc++.h.gch/O2ggnu++0x.gch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67622 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/62171] restrict pointer to struct with restrict pointers parm doesn't prevent aliases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62171 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- I was thinking about sth like struct X { int i; int * __restrict__ q; }; int foo (X& __restrict__ x, X *p) { *x.q = 1; p->i = 0; return *x.q; } int main() { X x; x.q = return foo (x, ); }

[Bug tree-optimization/67666] single restrict pointer in struct looses restrict

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67666 --- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: vries Date: Tue Sep 22 08:15:32 2015 New Revision: 227996 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227996=gcc=rev Log: Handle single restrict pointer in struct in create_variable_info_for_1

[Bug tree-optimization/67666] single restrict pointer in struct looses restrict

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67666 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug rtl-optimization/66790] Invalid uninitialized register handling in REE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790 --- Comment #29 from Paolo Bonzini --- > While getting familiar with DF problems, I noticed that LIVE's ignores > the order of GENs and KILLs in basic blocks. In other words, the > transfer function for: GEN(r1); KILL(r1) is currently the same

[Bug rtl-optimization/66790] Invalid uninitialized register handling in REE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790 --- Comment #31 from Paolo Bonzini --- Ah, I see now. I think you're right that the DF_REF_MUST_CLOBBER case should also clear GEN in df_live_bb_local_compute. However, regarding the "BTW" I am fairly sure now that df_live_bb_local_compute and

[Bug tree-optimization/67476] Add --param parloops-schedule=<static|dynamic|guided|auto|runtime>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67476 --- Comment #8 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Pinged: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg01623.html

[Bug tree-optimization/50417] regression: memcpy with known alignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50417 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- *** Bug 67676 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug rtl-optimization/66790] Invalid uninitialized register handling in REE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66790 --- Comment #30 from Eric Botcazou --- > GEN and KILL are not the same for LR and MIR. > > 1) Sets and clobbers are handled differently. A set or clobber of r1 > _kills_ liveness, while for MIR sets _generate_ "initialized-ness" and only >

[Bug c++/67678] New: Nested class can be re-declared after definition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67678 Bug ID: 67678 Summary: Nested class can be re-declared after definition Product: gcc Version: 5.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: accepts-invalid Severity: normal

[Bug target/65782] Assembly failure (invalid register for .seh_savexmm) with -O3 -mavx512f on mingw-w64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65782 Kai Tietz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/67480] AVX512 bitwise logic operations pattern is incorrect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67480 --- Comment #4 from Kirill Yukhin --- Author: kyukhin Date: Tue Sep 22 11:14:25 2015 New Revision: 228010 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228010=gcc=rev Log: PR target/67480 gcc/ * config/i386/sse.md (define_mode_iterator

[Bug libgomp/67141] wrong libgomp mutex initialisation order

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67141 --- Comment #7 from Chung-Lin Tang --- Author: cltang Date: Tue Sep 22 11:18:23 2015 New Revision: 228011 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228011=gcc=rev Log: 2015-09-22 Chung-Lin Tang Backport from

[Bug target/67480] AVX512 bitwise logic operations pattern is incorrect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67480 Alexander Fomin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/54895] the compiler treats '__cdecl' & '__stdcall' as the same.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54895 --- Comment #12 from Kai Tietz --- This bug got partially fixed for x86 (32-bit) by PR/44282. For x64 we have the issue that there is made no difference between different calling-conventions, as all variants are treated as standard

[Bug tree-optimization/62171] restrict pointer to struct with restrict pointers parm doesn't prevent aliases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62171 --- Comment #10 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #9) > On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62171 > > > > --- Comment #8 from vries

[Bug middle-end/65965] Straight-line memcpy/memset not vectorized when equivalent loop is

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65965 --- Comment #4 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > Fixed for GCC 6. Indeed. I note that the same testcase does _not_ SLP/vectorize if I use consecutive indices: void test (int*__restrict a,

[Bug c++/67544] ICE: SIGSEGV in tree_check3 (tree.h:2896) with -fconcepts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67544 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/54412] Request for 32-byte stack alignment with -mavx on Windows

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412 Kai Tietz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/62171] restrict pointer to struct with restrict pointers parm doesn't prevent aliases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62171 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62171 > > --- Comment #8 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from

[Bug middle-end/65965] Straight-line memcpy/memset not vectorized when equivalent loop is

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65965 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65965 > > --- Comment #4 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Richard Biener

[Bug tree-optimization/62171] restrict pointer to struct with restrict pointers parm doesn't prevent aliases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62171 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62171 > > --- Comment #10 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de

[Bug tree-optimization/67671] restrict pointer reference looses restrict

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67671 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/67671] restrict pointer reference looses restrict

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67671 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #2 from

[Bug sanitizer/64906] -fsanitize=integer-divide-by-zero creates false -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64906 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- int testf (int f, int s) { int ret = 0; if (f) ret = s / (f ? (unsigned long) 8 : 0); return ret; }

[Bug sanitizer/64906] -fsanitize=integer-divide-by-zero creates false -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64906 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- I'm testing a fix.

[Bug tree-optimization/67671] restrict pointer reference looses restrict

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67671 --- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: vries Date: Tue Sep 22 14:14:56 2015 New Revision: 228015 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228015=gcc=rev Log: Handle restrict pointer references as restrict in AA 2015-09-22 Tom de

[Bug fortran/67679] New: -Wunitialized reports on compiler generated variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67679 Bug ID: 67679 Summary: -Wunitialized reports on compiler generated variables Product: gcc Version: 5.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/58074] [C++11][DR 1333] __is_trivial intrinsic fails for deleted members and for non-trivial copy-c'tors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58074 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/58074] [C++11][DR 1333] __is_trivial intrinsic fails for deleted members and for non-trivial copy-c'tors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58074 --- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill --- Created attachment 36370 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36370=edit patch for GCC 5 And a patch to add a -Wabi warning to GCC 5.

[Bug c++/58074] [C++11][DR 1333] __is_trivial intrinsic fails for deleted members and for non-trivial copy-c'tors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58074 --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- Created attachment 36369 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36369=edit patch But here's the fix if the committee reaffirms the DR.

[Bug other/67627] libatomic parallel build failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67627 --- Comment #1 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org --- adding all-multi: $(libatomic_la_LIBADD) to libatomic/Makefile.in solves the problem for me, but i'm not sure what's the automake way of doing this