[Bug c++/27336] "this" pointer is not assumed to be not null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27336 --- Comment #8 from Guillaume Melquiond --- It is partly fixed. In callee position, GCC now knows that "this" is non-null. But in caller position, GCC still cannot make use of that information to remove non-null checks from dynamic casts. The

[Bug c/52952] Wformat location info is bad (wrong column number)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952 --- Comment #48 from Bernd Edlinger --- somethin like that fixes it for me: Index: pr66415-1.c === --- pr66415-1.c (revision 239624) +++ pr66415-1.c (working copy) @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@

[Bug c/52952] Wformat location info is bad (wrong column number)

ted passes3 /home/ed/gnu/gcc-build/gcc/xgcc version 7.0.0 20160819 (experimental) (GCC) COLUMNS=80 make check-gcc-c RUNTESTFLAGS="cpp.exp=pr66415-1.c" ... Running /home/ed/gnu/gcc-trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/cpp/cpp.exp ... FAIL: gcc.dg/cpp/pr66415-1.c expected multiline pattern lines

[Bug debug/49348] DW_TAG_template_* DIEs missing from template specializations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49348 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/61839] More optimize opportunity for VRP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61839 --- Comment #3 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kugan Date: Sat Aug 20 01:18:09 2016 New Revision: 239637 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239637=gcc=rev Log: gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2016-08-20 Kugan Vivekanandarajah

[Bug c++/77306] Unable to specify visibility for explicit template instantiations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77306 --- Comment #1 from James Abbatiello --- Created attachment 39478 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39478=edit Patch

[Bug c++/77306] New: Unable to specify visibility for explicit template instantiations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77306 Bug ID: 77306 Summary: Unable to specify visibility for explicit template instantiations Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug lto/77305] [7 Regression] -fdump-tree-all and -flto causes ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77305 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg01456.html

[Bug lto/77305] [7 Regression] -fdump-tree-all and -flto causes ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77305 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Target

[Bug lto/77305] New: [7 Regression] -fdump-tree-all and -flto causes ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77305 Bug ID: 77305 Summary: [7 Regression] -fdump-tree-all and -flto causes ICE Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/77304] New: ICE on C++ code with invalid template parameter: in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:11260

Thread model: posix gcc version 7.0.0 20160819 (experimental) [trunk revision 239608] (GCC) $ $ g++-trunk -c small.cpp small.cpp:5:14: error: ‘struct S’ is not a valid type for a template non-type parameter template < S > void f () {} ^ small.cpp: In static member function ‘

[Bug tree-optimization/71831] __builtin_object_size poor results with no optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71831 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/77303] New: std::max_element not constexpr with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77303 Bug ID: 77303 Summary: std::max_element not constexpr with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG Product: gcc Version: 6.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c/52952] Wformat location info is bad (wrong column number)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52952 Bernd Edlinger changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---

[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 #18 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- dg-options line was removed on trunk at https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237745=gcc=rev

[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 #17 from ncahill_alt at yahoo dot com --- This was the only test that failed for me, the others were debug info in LTO mode. I'm very glad that GCC 6.1.0 works so well and built cleanly like it did. This test was a minor thing

[Bug c++/27336] "this" pointer is not assumed to be not null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27336 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c++/77298] -Wnonnull-compare only emitted for code which is invoked

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77298 --- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6) > Yes, that makes sense to me as an explanation of the limitation of the GCC > implementation and a solution/workaround for it. I don't think it's >

[Bug tree-optimization/71550] [7 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71550 --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law --- This has gone latent on the trunk, but I'm pretty sure the core issues remain. Looking deeper into the problem, this may be another case of jump threading invalidating the cached loop iteration

[Bug c++/77302] New: partial specialization marked as ambiguous

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77302 Bug ID: 77302 Summary: partial specialization marked as ambiguous Product: gcc Version: 6.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug debug/59319] gcc does not emit DW_AT_friend or DW_TAG_friend

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59319 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug target/77270] Flag -mprftchw is shared with 3dnow for -march=k8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77270 --- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Fri Aug 19 18:14:03 2016 New Revision: 239626 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239626=gcc=rev Log: PR target/77270 * config/i386/i386.c

[Bug middle-end/77301] __builtin_object_size incorrect for an array in a struct referenced by a pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77301 --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor --- Thanks. As surprising as that seems, it would explain the output of the test case in comment #0, even though it's not at all obvious from the manual. But if change the test case like below I get three

[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 #16 from ncahill_alt at yahoo dot com --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15) > (In reply to ncahill_alt from comment #14) > > This test is failing for me in GCC 6.1.0 (i386). It complains about having > > no vectype. > >

[Bug target/32187] Complex __float128 is rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32187 --- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- You can now use _Complex _Float128. Given that, it's not obvious that _Complex __float128, with the legacy __float128 type name, should be supported (although not supporting that means

[Bug c++/77298] -Wnonnull-compare only emitted for code which is invoked

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77298 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Different warnings are simply done at different compilation phases. This is similar to how you get only a subset of FE warnings on uninstantiated templates, only something can be warned reliably at that

[Bug target/32187] Complex __float128 is rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32187 --- Comment #11 from Joseph S. Myers --- Author: jsm28 Date: Fri Aug 19 17:43:26 2016 New Revision: 239625 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239625=gcc=rev Log: Implement C _FloatN, _FloatNx types. ISO/IEC TS 18661-3:2015 defines C bindings

[Bug middle-end/77301] __builtin_object_size incorrect for an array in a struct referenced by a pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77301 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/77289] [7 Regression] ICE in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2212 on powerpc64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77289 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/77298] -Wnonnull-compare only emitted for code which is invoked

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77298 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- Yes, that makes sense to me as an explanation of the limitation of the GCC implementation and a solution/workaround for it. I don't think it's something users unfamiliar with GCC internals think of, though.

[Bug middle-end/77301] New: __builtin_object_size incorrect for an array in a struct referenced by a pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77301 Bug ID: 77301 Summary: __builtin_object_size incorrect for an array in a struct referenced by a pointer Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/77298] -Wnonnull-compare only emitted for code which is invoked

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77298 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- You can always use -fkeep-inline-functions to get the warning even for unused inlines (by forcing them to be emitted). -Wnonnull-compare isn't the only warning that isn't performed in the FEs early, think

[Bug c++/77298] -Wnonnull-compare only emitted for code which is invoked

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77298 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug tree-optimization/73714] [Regression 7] Incorrect unsigned long long arithmetic optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73714 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marc.glisse at normalesup dot org ---

[Bug c/77292] Spurious warning: logical not is only applied to the left hand side of comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77292 --- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #12) > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #11) > > Both of these suggestions are not so good. "!(a == b)" is better written > > as "a != b", and

[Bug target/77300] New: [MIPS] incorrectly moves instruction containing local GOT16 relocation into a delay slot

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77300 Bug ID: 77300 Summary: [MIPS] incorrectly moves instruction containing local GOT16 relocation into a delay slot Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/77270] Flag -mprftchw is shared with 3dnow for -march=k8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77270 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|wrong-code | Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/64082] virtual register elimination doing bad for local array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64082 Joey Ye changed: What|Removed |Added CC||joey.ye at arm dot com --- Comment #1 from

[Bug c++/77298] -Wnonnull-compare only emitted for code which is invoked

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77298 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- I should add that Clang issues the warning for all three functions: $ /build/llvm-trunk/bin/clang -S -Wall -Wextra -Wpedantic z.C z.C:2:21: warning: 'this' pointer cannot be null in well-defined C++ code;

[Bug c++/77297] parenthesis suppress/silences all warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77297 --- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- *** Bug 77299 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c++/77298] -Wnonnull-compare only emitted for code which is invoked

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77298 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/77299] No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/77298] -Wnonnull-compare only emitted for code which is invoked

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77298 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug c++/77297] parenthesis suppress/silences all warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77297 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug fortran/71014] associate statement inside omp parallel do appears to disable default private attribute for inner loop indices

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71014 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Aug 19 15:30:33 2016 New Revision: 239620 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239620=gcc=rev Log: PR fortran/71014 * resolve.c (gfc_resolve): For

[Bug fortran/72744] ICE in verify_ssa, at tree-ssa.c:1039

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72744 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Aug 19 15:28:59 2016 New Revision: 239619 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239619=gcc=rev Log: PR fortran/72744 * gfortran.dg/gomp/pr72744.f90: New test. Added:

[Bug fortran/69281] gfortran ICE on temporary array in function call with -fstack-arrays -fopenmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69281 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Aug 19 15:27:40 2016 New Revision: 239618 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239618=gcc=rev Log: PR fortran/69281 * trans-openmp.c (gfc_trans_omp_parallel,

[Bug c++/77297] New: -Wnonnull-compare not emitted inside ternary operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77297 Bug ID: 77297 Summary: -Wnonnull-compare not emitted inside ternary operator Product: gcc Version: 6.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/77298] New: -Wnonnull-compare only emitted for code which is invoked

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77298 Bug ID: 77298 Summary: -Wnonnull-compare only emitted for code which is invoked Product: gcc Version: 6.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/77299] New: No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299 Bug ID: 77299 Summary: No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants Product: gcc Version: 6.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/77296] Compiler Error with allocatable string and associate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77296 --- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig --- Also fails with 5.4.0.

[Bug target/77281] [ARM] Wrong code generated for move of constant vector with mix of signed and unsigned zeros

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77281 --- Comment #2 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: mwahab Date: Fri Aug 19 13:59:18 2016 New Revision: 239610 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239610=gcc=rev Log: [ARM] Fix an invalid check for vectors of the same floating-point

[Bug middle-end/71065] Missing diagnostic for statements between OpenMP 'target' and 'teams'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71065 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Note that according to the omp-lang discussions #pragma omp target { #pragma omp teams { ... } } is fine, while even #pragma omp target { {} #pragma omp teams { ... } } (or ; etc., before

[Bug middle-end/71065] Missing diagnostic for statements between OpenMP 'target' and 'teams'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71065 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug fortran/77296] New: Compiler Error with allocatable string and associate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77296 Bug ID: 77296 Summary: Compiler Error with allocatable string and associate Product: gcc Version: 6.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c/77292] Spurious warning: logical not is only applied to the left hand side of comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77292 --- Comment #12 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #11) > Both of these suggestions are not so good. "!(a == b)" is better written > as "a != b", and "!(a) == b" is just horrible. Agreed for the former,

[Bug c/77292] Spurious warning: logical not is only applied to the left hand side of comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77292 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug middle-end/35170] Earlier VRP would help -Wreturn-type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35170 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Target|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu| Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/77292] Spurious warning: logical not is only applied to the left hand side of comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77292 --- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5) > int > foo (int a, int b) > { > return !a == (a < b); > } > > t.c: In function ‘foo’: > t.c:4:13: warning: logical not is only applied to the left hand

[Bug c/77292] Spurious warning: logical not is only applied to the left hand side of comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77292 --- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to M Welinder from comment #3) > I am not aware of a rule that requires the compiler to ignore context > when considering warnings. It certainly does consider context when > it issues "might

[Bug c/77292] Spurious warning: logical not is only applied to the left hand side of comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77292 --- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek --- Neither does cc1plus because comparison result has a boolean type... I'll see what I can do here.

[Bug c/77292] Spurious warning: logical not is only applied to the left hand side of comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77292 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|SUSPENDED |NEW Summary|value range

[Bug c/77292] value range propagation (VRP) would improve -Wlogical-not-parentheses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77292 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4) > Note that Clang suggests two ways to silence the warning: > > prog.cc:9:10: note: add parentheses after the '!' to evaluate the comparison > first >

[Bug target/70713] msp430 interrupt attribute prevents overriding weak symbols

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70713 Joe Seymour changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug c/77292] value range propagation (VRP) would improve -Wlogical-not-parentheses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77292 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to M Welinder from comment #3) > The actual code I got this warning from was... > > if (!lower_tail == (p > phalf)) { > > where lower_tail is an int and p and phalf are doubles.

[Bug c/77292] value range propagation (VRP) would improve -Wlogical-not-parentheses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77292 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/77292] Spurious "warning: logical not is only applied to the left hand side of comparison"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77292 --- Comment #3 from M Welinder --- The actual code I got this warning from was... if (!lower_tail == (p > phalf)) { where lower_tail is an int and p and phalf are doubles. That's simply a comparison of two booleans. Note,

[Bug c/77292] Spurious "warning: logical not is only applied to the left hand side of comparison"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77292 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/69789] g++ -O2 is removing tests against a variable that can be changed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69789 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Thomas Markwalder from comment #5) > A bit more digging reveals that in the logic expression which fails: > > {{{ > // Check if we need to run the operation again. > if (ec ==

[Bug target/69789] g++ -O2 is removing tests against a variable that can be changed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69789 Tomek Mrugalski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||spam.gcc at klub dot com.pl ---

[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 #15 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to ncahill_alt from comment #14) > This test is failing for me in GCC 6.1.0 (i386). It complains about having > no vectype. > > Why that is, I don't know. But it doesn't seem to be a problem

[Bug tree-optimization/77290] [7 regression] test case gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71347.c fails starting with r239565

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77290 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/77289] [7 Regression] ICE in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2212 on powerpc64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77289 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.0 Summary|ICE in

[Bug tree-optimization/77290] [7 regression] test case gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr71347.c fails starting with r239565

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77290 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/77291] False positive for -Warray-bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77291 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic, wrong-code

[Bug c/77292] Spurious "warning: logical not is only applied to the left hand side of comparison"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77292 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic --- Comment #1 from Richard

[Bug middle-end/77295] missed optimisation when copying/moving union members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77295 --- Comment #3 from Avi Kivity --- If x->which is known then of course just that branch should be followed, and the others eliminated. I'm talking about the case where it isn't known (very common in my code).

[Bug middle-end/77293] __builtin_object_size inconsistent for multidimensional arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77293 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||64715 --- Comment #1 from Richard

[Bug middle-end/77295] missed optimisation when copying/moving union members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77295 --- Comment #2 from Avi Kivity --- Typically, the code is a template: template struct discriminated_union { unsigned which; union { T v1; U v2; }; }; If either T or U have non-trivial

[Bug middle-end/77295] missed optimisation when copying/moving union members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77295 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/77286] [7 Regression] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2248 building 435.gromacs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77286 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/77286] [7 Regression] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2248 building 435.gromacs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77286 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/77295] New: missed optimisation when copying/moving union members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77295 Bug ID: 77295 Summary: missed optimisation when copying/moving union members Product: gcc Version: 6.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3