[Bug tree-optimization/71921] missed vectorization optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Component|libstdc++ |tree-optimization --- Comment #3 from

[Bug rtl-optimization/66795] Incorrect and missed optimizations of __builtin_frame_address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66795 --- Comment #2 from Andy Lutomirski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > The code below is invalid as __builtin_frame_address is only for reading > from the current frame. If this code is invalid, then what exactly is valid code

[Bug c/71926] wrong location for -Wparentheses warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71926 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug c/71926] New: wrong -Wparentheses warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71926 Bug ID: 71926 Summary: wrong -Wparentheses warning Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee:

[Bug middle-end/64143] Add option -felide-aliases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64143 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug c++/64142] Add option, -felide-copies

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64142 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- C++17 changes the rules about elide-copies and actually forces to do it rather than just allowing it.

[Bug target/71493] [6/7 regression] accidental ABI change for structure return on PowerPC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71493 Michael Meissner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/71493] [6/7 regression] accidental ABI change for structure return on PowerPC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71493 --- Comment #6 from Michael Meissner --- Author: meissner Date: Tue Jul 19 03:39:34 2016 New Revision: 238455 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238455=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2016-07-18 Michael Meissner

[Bug target/71493] [6/7 regression] accidental ABI change for structure return on PowerPC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71493 --- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner --- Author: meissner Date: Tue Jul 19 03:31:48 2016 New Revision: 238454 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238454=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2016-07-18 Michael Meissner PR

[Bug c/67243] Wrong Message of -Wvla for Standard ISO C90 However Emitted with -std=c11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67243 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Andrew Pinski

[Bug c/67243] Wrong Message of -Wvla for Standard ISO C90 However Emitted with -std=c11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67243 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c/71925] poor -Wvla phrasing in C99 mode and later, documentation misleading

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71925 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/71925] New: poor -Wvla phrasing in C99 mode and later, documentation misleading

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71925 Bug ID: 71925 Summary: poor -Wvla phrasing in C99 mode and later, documentation misleading Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/70977] [6/7 Regression] Out of memory during compilation of facebook/wangle (flag c++0x works, flag c++14 fails).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70977 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/70824] [6/7 Regression] cc1plus consumes all available memory on specific template code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70824 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aleksandergajewski at gmail dot

[Bug c/71924] missing -Wreturn-local-addr returning alloca result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71924 --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor --- Returning [the address of] a compound literal, or any indirectly referenced object (such as those in comment #1), suffers from the same limitation. Compiling the program with -O2 (but not -O1) does produce

[Bug libgcc/71890] when using setjmp do context switch, libgcc crash the process when do unwind in thread cancel signal handler on X86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71890 --- Comment #2 from wgkun at hotmail dot com --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > I don't think this is a valid thing to do with setjmp and longjmp. > > Why are you not using makecontext/setcontext/getcontext/swapcontext instead? >

[Bug libstdc++/71921] missed vectorization optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921 --- Comment #2 from Arjan van de Ven --- I tried with <= and it doesn't seem all to eager to be vectorized that way either; fast-math works either way

[Bug c/71924] missing -Wreturn-local-addr returning alloca result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71924 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I expect we also miss: void* foo1 (void) { char a [4]; char *b = a; return b; } void* foo2 (void) { char *b = (char[4]){0, 0, 0, 0}; return b; } Basically we don't do any flow analysis for this

[Bug c/71924] missing -Wreturn-local-addr returning alloca result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71924 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug c/71924] New: missing -Wreturn-local-addr returning alloca result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71924 Bug ID: 71924 Summary: missing -Wreturn-local-addr returning alloca result Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c/7652] -Wswitch-break : Warn if a switch case falls through

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7652 Tim Haines changed: What|Removed |Added CC||thaines.astro at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug target/71922] arm: ifuncs are broken in for arm (gcc generates incorrect code in object file)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71922 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- If anything this might be a binutils bug and not a GCC bug based on your description and should be reported there (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ ) instead of here.

[Bug target/71922] arm: ifuncs are broken in for arm (gcc generates incorrect code in object file)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71922 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- More to the point GCC just outputs: .globl FUNC .type FUNC, @gnu_indirect_function .set FUNC, __resolve_FUNC How did you configure GCC?

[Bug target/71922] arm: ifuncs are broken in for arm (gcc generates incorrect code in object file)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71922 --- Comment #6 from dimitry --- ok one correction - this is objdump of the .so file, not the object file. What I expected to see here is branch to ptl (which uses result of ARM_IRELATIVE reloc) This does not seem to be the case. (the reloc

[Bug target/71922] arm: ifuncs are broken in for arm (gcc generates incorrect code in object file)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71922 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- What is gcc producing wrong then? Because if you are part of the bionic team you should understand how relocs work. If it is a wrong relocation then binutils might be causing the issue rather thanot gcc.

[Bug target/71922] arm: ifuncs are broken in for arm (gcc generates incorrect code in object file)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71922 --- Comment #4 from dimitry --- (I am from the bionic team) I do not have access to arm ld-linux.so. The problem here is that code generated by gcc is incorrect for arm.

[Bug target/71922] arm: ifuncs are broken in for arm (gcc generates incorrect code in object file)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71922 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code --- Comment #3 from Andrew

[Bug c++/70977] [6/7 Regression] Out of memory during compilation of facebook/wangle (flag c++0x works, flag c++14 fails).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70977 --- Comment #10 from Romain Geissler --- This is actually a dup of #70824 which was just fixed in trunk.

[Bug tree-optimization/71923] New: Two consecutive "rep ret" instruction in assembly output of recursive function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71923 Bug ID: 71923 Summary: Two consecutive "rep ret" instruction in assembly output of recursive function Product: gcc Version: 6.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug target/71922] arm: ifuncs are broken in for arm (gcc generates incorrect code in object file)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71922 --- Comment #2 from dimitry --- The test is failing at runtime. which was the reason I started looking at objdump

[Bug target/71922] arm: ifuncs are broken in for arm (gcc generates incorrect code in object file)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71922 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target||arm*-* Component|c

[Bug c/71922] New: arm: ifuncs are broken in for arm (gcc generates incorrect code in object file)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71922 Bug ID: 71922 Summary: arm: ifuncs are broken in for arm (gcc generates incorrect code in object file) Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/71921] missed vectorization optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|tree-optimization |libstdc++ --- Comment #1 from Andrew

[Bug target/71493] [6/7 regression] accidental ABI change for structure return on PowerPC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71493 --- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner --- Created attachment 38924 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38924=edit Proposed patch to fix the problem I'm testing this patch right now. The patch applies to both the trunk and the

[Bug tree-optimization/71921] New: missed vectorization optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71921 Bug ID: 71921 Summary: missed vectorization optimization Product: gcc Version: 6.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/71919] Redefinition of user-defined conversions (via typedef) shouldn't compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71919 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid

[Bug lto/71920] request to backport commit trunk@234239 to gcc 4.9 and 5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71920 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug lto/71920] New: request to backport commit trunk@234239 to gcc 4.9 and 5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71920 Bug ID: 71920 Summary: request to backport commit trunk@234239 to gcc 4.9 and 5 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/70869] [6 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault on array of pointer to function members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70869 --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Jul 18 18:45:18 2016 New Revision: 238444 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238444=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/70869 PR c++/71054 * cp-gimplify.c

[Bug c++/71054] [6/7 Regression] ICE: in expand_expr_real_2, at expr.c:8097

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71054 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Jul 18 18:45:18 2016 New Revision: 238444 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238444=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/70869 PR c++/71054 * cp-gimplify.c

[Bug c++/71835] [6/7 Regression] ICE on invalid C++ code with ambiguous overloaded operators: tree check: expected tree that contains ‘decl minimal’ structure, have ‘pointer_type’ in convert_like_real

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71835 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Jul 18 18:44:51 2016 New Revision: 238443 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238443=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/71835 * call.c (build_op_call_1): Use

[Bug c++/71828] [6/7 regression] ICE on valid C++11 code with constexpr __Complex int variable declaration: in operand_equal_p, at fold-const.c:2790

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71828 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Jul 18 18:43:19 2016 New Revision: 238442 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238442=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/71828 * constexpr.c (cxx_eval_constant_expression) :

[Bug c++/71826] [7 Regression] ICE on valid C++ code with ambiguous member lookup: tree check: expected baselink, have error_mark in tsubst_baselink, at cp/pt.c:13737

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71826 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Jul 18 18:42:24 2016 New Revision: 238441 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238441=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/71826 * pt.c (tsubst_baselink): Only set BASELINK_OPTYPE for

[Bug c++/71822] [6/7 Regression] ICE: in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:11025

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71822 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Jul 18 18:40:12 2016 New Revision: 238440 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238440=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/71822 * cp-gimplify.c (cp_gimplify_expr) : Recursively

[Bug middle-end/71734] [7 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/simd4.f90 -O3 -g execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71734 Bill Seurer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||seurer at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---

[Bug c++/71919] New: Redefinition of user-defined conversions (via typedef) shouldn't compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71919 Bug ID: 71919 Summary: Redefinition of user-defined conversions (via typedef) shouldn't compile Product: gcc Version: 6.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c/71855] duplicate unspecified_parameters DIE in DWARF for functions with variable arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71855 --- Comment #2 from Ben Woodard --- This is about as simple of a reproducer as I have been able to come up with: #define _GNU_SOURCE #include #include #include void m4_error (int status, int errnum, const char *format, ...) { va_list

[Bug c++/71871] ICE on mixing templates and vector extensions ternary operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71871 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Jul 18 17:44:48 2016 New Revision: 238439 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238439=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/71871 * typeck.c (build_x_conditional_expr): Revert the

[Bug libstdc++/71899] An internal BooleanTestable trait should be provided

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71899 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #2) > I dislike the #ifdef parts. I'm sorry for my misleading proposal. My extended proposal is not suggesting to add this macro. I was using this macro solely

[Bug debug/71906] [6/7 Regression] Fortran allocatable strings debug info type size regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71906 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 38923 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38923=edit gcc7-pr71906-wip.patch Untested WIP patch, that should fix the vara, varb and vare cases at -O0, for optimized builds

[Bug c++/71463] [6/7 regression] unexpected warning: ignoring function return attributes on template argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71463 --- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6) > I didn't know that GCC considers attribute warn_unused_result part of the > function type. When you say that most of these attributes apply to the > function

[Bug c++/71912] [6/7 regression] flexible array in struct in union rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71912 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/71899] An internal BooleanTestable trait should be provided

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71899 Ville Voutilainen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com

[Bug tree-optimization/71769] Invalid warning from -Wunsafe-loop-optimizations for a finite loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71769 amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/71918] Internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71918 --- Comment #9 from jordyruiz at hotmail dot fr --- Alright then, thanks for the troubleshooting guys. Will be more careful when sharing libraries on different machines.

[Bug c++/69515] partial specialization of variable templates is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69515 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/70584] constexpr variables cannot be used as intrinsic arguments where an immediate is expected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70584 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/70095] [C++14] Link error on partially specialized variable template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70095 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/55576] Fails to compile a call to template member function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55576 --- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill --- Looking at the standard again, I notice When the name of a member template specialization appears after . or -> in a postfix-expression or after a nested-name-specifier in a qualified-id, and the object

[Bug c++/71918] Internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71918 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to jordyruiz from comment #6) > > Also this is most likely GMP not compiled for generic but a specific CPU and > > you don't have a compatible CPU. > > > > Did you compile GMP yourself or did you

[Bug c++/71918] Internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71918 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/71918] Internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71918 --- Comment #6 from jordyruiz at hotmail dot fr --- > Also this is most likely GMP not compiled for generic but a specific CPU and > you don't have a compatible CPU. > > Did you compile GMP yourself or did you get it from a distro? If you got

[Bug fortran/71703] [4.9/5/6/7 Regression] ICE in wide_int_to_tree, at tree.c:1488

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71703 Tom changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tom.k.cook at gmail dot com --- Comment #4 from

[Bug c++/71918] Internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71918 --- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > (In reply to jordyruiz from comment #2) > > Hi, > > > > I have managed to output a cvc4_operand_visitor.ii file, but it's 77182 > > lines long, I'm afraid

[Bug c++/71918] Internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71918 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- Also this is most likely GMP not compiled for generic but a specific CPU and you don't have a compatible CPU. Did you compile GMP yourself or did you get it from a distro? If you got it from a distro, you

[Bug c++/71918] Internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71918 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to jordyruiz from comment #2) > Hi, > > I have managed to output a cvc4_operand_visitor.ii file, but it's 77182 > lines long, I'm afraid this may not be what you're looking for. > > I use an

[Bug c++/71918] Internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71918 --- Comment #2 from jordyruiz at hotmail dot fr --- Hi, I have managed to output a cvc4_operand_visitor.ii file, but it's 77182 lines long, I'm afraid this may not be what you're looking for. I use an Intel Core 2 Duo CPU E6850 @ 3.00GHz. I

[Bug c++/71910] ICE on invalid OpenMP code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71910 --- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov --- Created attachment 38922 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38922=edit preprocessed testcase I can also reproduce this on 5.4 and trunk with a cross-compiler configured with

[Bug c++/71092] [6/7 Regression] ICE: in cxx_eval_call_expression, at cp/constexpr.c:1449; only with -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71092 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/71918] New: Internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71918 Bug ID: 71918 Summary: Internal compiler error: Illegal instruction Product: gcc Version: 6.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/71918] Internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71918 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug debug/71906] [6/7 Regression] Fortran allocatable strings debug info type size regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71906 --- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil --- Could you attach here the ICC .s file if you have it handy? Thanks.

[Bug middle-end/71734] [7 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/simd4.f90 -O3 -g execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71734 --- Comment #5 from Ilya Enkovich --- Author: ienkovich Date: Mon Jul 18 14:30:20 2016 New Revision: 238435 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238435=gcc=rev Log: gcc/ 2016-07-18 Yuri Rumyantsev PR

[Bug debug/71906] [6/7 Regression] Fortran allocatable strings debug info type size regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71906 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug java/71917] [7 regression] libjava.jar/ReturnProxyTest.jar etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71917 Matthew Fortune changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matthew.fortune at imgtec dot com

[Bug tree-optimization/71916] [6/7 Regression] ICE at -O3 on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in "maybe_record_trace_start"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71916 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.2

[Bug java/71917] [7 regression] libjava.jar/ReturnProxyTest.jar etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71917 --- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- The failures are obviously caused by 2016-07-13 Matthew Fortune * java/lang/reflect/natVMProxy.cc (unbox): Use ffi_arg for integer return

[Bug rtl-optimization/71793] Volatile local variable passed by value is (wrongly?) optimised away, but the containing loop is not

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71793 --- Comment #4 from DB --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > Well, if you look at the out-of-line copies of the function then he is > correct. > But the inline copy in main() does not have this constraint and is still > mishandled.

[Bug java/71917] [7 regression] libjava.jar/ReturnProxyTest.jar etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71917 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.0

[Bug java/71917] New: [7 regression] libjava.jar/ReturnProxyTest.jar etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71917 Bug ID: 71917 Summary: [7 regression] libjava.jar/ReturnProxyTest.jar etc. FAIL Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/71916] [6/7 Regression] ICE at -O3 on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in "maybe_record_trace_start"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71916 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

[Bug rtl-optimization/71793] Volatile local variable passed by value is (wrongly?) optimised away, but the containing loop is not

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71793 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to DB from comment #2) > Thanks Richard! About this - > > > RTL expansion expands x as register copy for some reason > > - is this person's explanation about this originating in the ABI

[Bug tree-optimization/71916] New: gcc ICE at -O3 on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in "maybe_record_trace_start"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71916 Bug ID: 71916 Summary: gcc ICE at -O3 on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in "maybe_record_trace_start" Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug rtl-optimization/71634] Invalid write with in mark_loops_for_removal (ira-build.c:2256) with --param ira-max-loops-num=0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71634 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/71634] [4.9//5/6 Regression] Invalid write with in mark_loops_for_removal (ira-build.c:2256) with --param ira-max-loops-num=0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71634 --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Mon Jul 18 13:01:12 2016 New Revision: 238431 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238431=gcc=rev Log: Fix PR rtl-optimization/71634 Backported from mainline 2016-07-12

[Bug rtl-optimization/71634] [4.9//5/6 Regression] Invalid write with in mark_loops_for_removal (ira-build.c:2256) with --param ira-max-loops-num=0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71634 --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Mon Jul 18 12:59:10 2016 New Revision: 238430 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238430=gcc=rev Log: Fix PR rtl-optimization/71634 Backported from mainline 2016-07-12

[Bug rtl-optimization/71634] [4.9//5/6 Regression] Invalid write with in mark_loops_for_removal (ira-build.c:2256) with --param ira-max-loops-num=0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71634 --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Mon Jul 18 12:57:25 2016 New Revision: 238429 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=238429=gcc=rev Log: Fix PR rtl-optimization/71634 Backported from mainline 2016-07-12

[Bug target/59833] ARM soft-float extendsfdf2 fails to quiet signaling NaN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59833 --- Comment #9 from Aurelien Jarno --- (In reply to ramana.radhakrishnan from comment #8) > On 14/07/16 12:15, aurelien at aurel32 dot net wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59833 > > > > --- Comment #7 from Aurelien Jarno

[Bug target/71903] Wrong opcode using x86 SSE _mm_cmpge_ps intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71903 --- Comment #5 from Carlos Rafael --- (In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #3) > No worries. As the reporter you should be able to resolve it as "invalid". Ok! Thanks!

[Bug middle-end/66867] Suboptimal code generation for atomic_compare_exchange

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66867 --- Comment #11 from dhowells at redhat dot com --- I applied the patch to the Fedora cross-gcc-6.1.1 rpm with one minor fixup. Using the example code I added in bug 70825 I now see: : 0: ba 2a 00 00 00 mov

[Bug debug/71906] [6/7 Regression] Fortran allocatable strings debug info type size regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71906 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/71912] flexible array in union

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71912 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c++/71912] flexible array in union

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71912 --- Comment #2 from drepper.fsp+rhbz at gmail dot com --- If it is accepted that this code should work (as I also expect) then this bug should also be marked as a regression to 5.x. 6.1 at least is broken, I

[Bug target/71216] [4.9/5/6/7 Regression] Incorrect PPC assembly due to inserted .machine pseudo-op

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71216 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/71769] Invalid warning from -Wunsafe-loop-optimizations for a finite loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71769 amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug middle-end/71907] [6/7 regression] missing buffer overflow warnings with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71907 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- We can stream a fake abstract origin, refering to $self. That fixes the issue but I'm not sure of all the side-effects. Testing that.

[Bug c++/71909] [4.9/5/6/7 Regression] g++ accepts an unreachable function catch block that lacks a corresponding try

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71909 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/71879] Error in unevaluated context breaks SFINAE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71879 bogdan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||inadgob at yahoo dot com --- Comment #2 from

[Bug middle-end/71907] [6/7 regression] missing buffer overflow warnings with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71907 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- So the issue is that the BLOCK of the call is one w/o an abstract origin (its supercontext is the inline-BLOCK). This is because LTO drops all abstract origins but FUNCTION_DECLs (aka

  1   2   >