[Bug middle-end/78995] A strange copy error caused by O3 optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78995 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/78812] [5/6/7 Regression] Wrong code generation due to hoisting memory load across function call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78812 --- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Thu Jan 5 07:38:48 2017 New Revision: 244093 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244093=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimizatin/78812 * rtl.h (contains_mem_rtx_p): Prototype.

[Bug debug/79000] New: ICE: in gen_member_die, at dwarf2out.c:23995

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79000 Bug ID: 79000 Summary: ICE: in gen_member_die, at dwarf2out.c:23995 Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: lto Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/78999] New: problem with gcc on cygwin??? cygwin 2.6.1 with gcc 5.4.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78999 Bug ID: 78999 Summary: problem with gcc on cygwin??? cygwin 2.6.1 with gcc 5.4.0 Product: gcc Version: 5.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/78914] missing -Wnonnull for a trivial null pointer dereference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78914 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/16351] NULL dereference warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/78998] missing -Wnonnull for an unconditional call to strlen with a null argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78998 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic See Also|

[Bug middle-end/78998] New: missing -Wnonnull for an unconditional call to strlen with a null argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78998 Bug ID: 78998 Summary: missing -Wnonnull for an unconditional call to strlen with a null argument Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug libstdc++/78996] uses macro as name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78996 Tim Shen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug libstdc++/78996] uses macro as name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78996 --- Comment #2 from Tim Shen --- Author: timshen Date: Thu Jan 5 03:18:17 2017 New Revision: 244092 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244092=gcc=rev Log: 2017-01-05 Tim Shen PR libstdc++/78996 *

[Bug c/78987] Wrong location of a binary expression for -Waddress

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78987 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/64767] Could GCC warn when a pointer is compared against '\0'?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64767 --- Comment #11 from Eric Gallager --- Thank you for adding this!

[Bug c++/78948] [C++17] constexpr if instantiating too eagerly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78948 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid

[Bug c++/78988] Wrong location of a binary expression for -Waddress

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78988 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/78997] [7.0 regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_gimple failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78997 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

[Bug tree-optimization/78997] New: ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_gimple failed

: posix gcc version 7.0.0 20170104 (experimental) [trunk revision 244072] (GCC) $ $ gcc-trunk -O2 small.c $ gcc-6.2 -O3 small.c $ $ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c small.c: In function ‘foo’: small.c:7:6: error: the first argument of a VEC_COND_EXPR must be of a boolean vector type of the same number of elements

[Bug libstdc++/78996] uses macro as name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78996 --- Comment #1 from W E Brown --- Created attachment 40465 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40465=edit Preprocessed source

[Bug libstdc++/78996] New: uses macro as name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78996 Bug ID: 78996 Summary: uses macro as name Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee:

[Bug c++/78995] New: A strange copy error caused by O3 optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78995 Bug ID: 78995 Summary: A strange copy error caused by O3 optimization Product: gcc Version: 4.8.5 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/78823] Poor code on PowerPC when moving SFmode values between GPRs and vector registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78823 --- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner --- Author: meissner Date: Thu Jan 5 00:43:53 2017 New Revision: 244084 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244084=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-01-04 Michael Meissner PR

[Bug target/70568] [5/6/7 regression] PowerPC64: union of floating and fixed doesn't use POWER8 GPR/VSR moves

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70568 --- Comment #8 from Michael Meissner --- Author: meissner Date: Thu Jan 5 00:43:53 2017 New Revision: 244084 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244084=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-01-04 Michael Meissner PR

[Bug target/71977] powerpc64: Use VSR when operating on float and integer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71977 --- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner --- Author: meissner Date: Thu Jan 5 00:43:53 2017 New Revision: 244084 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244084=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-01-04 Michael Meissner PR

[Bug other/32415] libgcc_s not found in library search path with --enable-version-specific-runtime-libs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32415 bruno at clisp dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bruno at clisp dot org ---

[Bug middle-end/78993] False positive from -Wmaybe-uninitialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78993 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- # i_5 = PHI # j_27 = PHI # prephitmp_7 = PHI <0(3), prephitmp_17(4)> _14 = i_5 > 9; _18 = prephitmp_7 | _14; if (_18 != 0) goto ; [44.99%] else

[Bug middle-end/78993] False positive from -Wmaybe-uninitialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78993 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||4.1.0, 5.3.0, 6.2.0, 7.0 --- Comment #3

[Bug middle-end/78993] False positive from -Wmaybe-uninitialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78993 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug rtl-optimization/78812] [5/6/7 Regression] Wrong code generation due to hoisting memory load across function call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78812 --- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law --- So I see a case in postreload-gcse.c where we might mis-handle when the destination is a ZERO_EXTRACT or STRICT_LOW_PART. Neither happen often which is probably why we've never noticed.

[Bug target/78994] -Ofast makes aarch64 C++ benchmark slower for A53

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78994 --- Comment #3 from PeteVine --- Hey, that works for me too! (62565 vs 70758 in favour of -Ofast). Usefully strange :)

[Bug rtl-optimization/78812] [5/6/7 Regression] Wrong code generation due to hoisting memory load across function call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78812 --- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law --- I'm mostly concerned about other places where we assume that a memory reference is supposed to show up at the toplevel of a source/dest. For example, it looks like we don't properly handle the case where

[Bug rtl-optimization/78812] [5/6/7 Regression] Wrong code generation due to hoisting memory load across function call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78812 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #10) > Since that's not a MEM_P, the expression isn't removed from antic/transp > which makes it subject to hoisting across the abnormal edge. > > This could be

[Bug c/78989] Missing -Waddress warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||77513 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug c/78989] Missing -Waddress warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Isn't there a dup somewhere? I Know this was filed before.

[Bug rtl-optimization/78812] [5/6/7 Regression] Wrong code generation due to hoisting memory load across function call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78812 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at redhat dot com ---

[Bug c++/60685] exception not caught by enclosing catch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60685 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/78994] -Ofast makes aarch64 C++ benchmark slower for A53

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78994 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|-Ofast makes aarch64 C++|-Ofast makes aarch64 C++

[Bug target/78994] -Ofast makes aarch64 C++ benchmark slower

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78994 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added URL|https://github.com/supercur | |io/dsp-bench-cpp

[Bug middle-end/78994] New: -Ofast makes aarch64 C++ benchmark slower

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78994 Bug ID: 78994 Summary: -Ofast makes aarch64 C++ benchmark slower Product: gcc Version: 5.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug libstdc++/78991] std::sort and std::unique can not use std::function with clang++ -std=c++14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78991 Tobias changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/78991] std::sort and std::unique can not use std::function with clang++ -std=c++14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78991 --- Comment #2 from Tobias --- Thanks. The evidence you collected shows quite clear, that it probably is a problem with clang. So I now posted it here: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31537

[Bug c++/64767] Could GCC warn when a pointer is compared against '\0'?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64767 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/64767] Could GCC warn when a pointer is compared against '\0'?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64767 --- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Wed Jan 4 21:47:04 2017 New Revision: 244076 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244076=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/64767 * c.opt (Wpointer-compare): New option. *

[Bug tree-optimization/78910] Wrong print-return-value for a negative number

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78910 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor

[Bug libstdc++/78991] std::sort and std::unique can not use std::function with clang++ -std=c++14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78991 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- How positive you are that this is a libstdc++ bug rather than a clang bug? It works correctly with GCC 5.4.0's front-end and GCC 7.0's libstdc++ and front-end.

[Bug middle-end/78993] False positive from -Wmaybe-uninitialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78993 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- Created attachment 40462 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40462=edit Gimple dump from when warning is emitted

[Bug c++/78949] incorrect "unused variable" warning with SSE2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78949 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Fixed on the trunk so far.

[Bug c++/78693] [6 Regression] Bogus 'inconsistent deduction for ‘auto’' error when having a dependent initializer and a nondependent one in the same declaration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78693 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[6/7 Regression] Bogus |[6 Regression] Bogus

[Bug middle-end/78993] New: False positive from -Wmaybe-uninitialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78993 Bug ID: 78993 Summary: False positive from -Wmaybe-uninitialized Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/78949] incorrect "unused variable" warning with SSE2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78949 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Jan 4 21:34:27 2017 New Revision: 244075 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244075=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/78949 * typeck.c (cp_build_unary_op): Call mark_rvalue_use

[Bug c++/78693] [6/7 Regression] Bogus 'inconsistent deduction for ‘auto’' error when having a dependent initializer and a nondependent one in the same declaration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78693 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Jan 4 21:30:35 2017 New Revision: 244074 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244074=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/78693 * parser.c (cp_parser_simple_declaration): Only

[Bug sanitizer/78992] New: Incorrect sigaction definition on 32-bit sparc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78992 Bug ID: 78992 Summary: Incorrect sigaction definition on 32-bit sparc Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug rtl-optimization/78116] [7 regression] Performance drop after r241173 on avx512 target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78116 --- Comment #10 from Pat Haugen --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9) > Any progress on this? Besides waiting for pr77536 to be fixed, I'm not sure what specifically can be done on this issue to fix the problem. I personally have not

[Bug libstdc++/78991] New: std::sort and std::unique can not use std::function with clang++ -std=c++14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78991 Bug ID: 78991 Summary: std::sort and std::unique can not use std::function with clang++ -std=c++14 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug driver/78957] ICE: SIGSEGV with -fno-sso-struct=web

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78957 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug driver/78957] ICE: SIGSEGV with -fno-sso-struct=web

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78957 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Jan 4 20:25:13 2017 New Revision: 244072 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244072=gcc=rev Log: PR driver/78957 * c.opt (fsso-struct=): Add RejectNegative.

[Bug c++/71182] [6 Regression] parser.c cp_lexer_previous_token sanitizer detects member call on null pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71182 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[6/7 Regression] parser.c |[6 Regression] parser.c

[Bug c++/71182] [6/7 Regression] parser.c cp_lexer_previous_token sanitizer detects member call on null pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71182 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Jan 4 20:05:14 2017 New Revision: 244070 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244070=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/71182 * parser.c (cp_lexer_previous_token): Use

[Bug target/78953] Errors in compiling Spec 2006 for power9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78953 Michael Meissner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/78900] ICE in gcc.target/powerpc/signbit-3.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78900 --- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner --- Fixed in trunk in subversion id 244044. I will hold the bug open until it is checked into the GCC 6 branch.

[Bug target/78056] [7 Regression] build failure on Power7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78056 --- Comment #20 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kelvin Date: Wed Jan 4 20:03:00 2017 New Revision: 244068 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244068=gcc=rev Log: gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: 2017-01-04 Kelvin Nilsen

[Bug c/78989] Missing -Waddress warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989 --- Comment #4 from David Malcolm --- ...or to use a rich location to send two locations for the warning, giving: return (asan_poison_variables && ^~ # 6 "gimplify.cpp" 3 4 __null

[Bug c/78989] Missing -Waddress warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989 --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm --- Looking at the PRs you filed about the locations (PR78987 and PR78988), perhaps the best approach here is for the location of the warning to be either this: return (asan_poison_variables &&

[Bug tree-optimization/67955] tree-dse does not use pointer info

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67955 --- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Wed Jan 4 19:22:44 2017 New Revision: 244067 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244067=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimizatin/67955 * tree-ssa-alias.c

[Bug c/44677] Warn for variables incremented but not used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44677 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6) > I haven't thought through the implementation challenges but defining the > extended -Wunused-but-set-variabl rule that's being suggested here seems >

[Bug bootstrap/78984] [4.9 regression] bootstrap fails while creating 32-bit libgcc on 64-bit x86_64-linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78984 --- Comment #8 from Andreas Schwab --- The binutils testsuite depends on it.

[Bug c/44677] Warn for variables incremented but not used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44677 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug fortran/78990] New: ICE when assigning polymorphic array function result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78990 Bug ID: 78990 Summary: ICE when assigning polymorphic array function result Product: gcc Version: 6.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c/78989] Missing -Waddress warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c/78989] Missing -Waddress warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug bootstrap/78984] [4.9 regression] bootstrap fails while creating 32-bit libgcc on 64-bit x86_64-linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78984 --- Comment #7 from bruno at clisp dot org --- (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #6) > Note that if you use --with-ld, -B no longer works. Thanks Andreas. In fact, I've never used the -B option (except during gcc bootstrap). Some 20 years

[Bug c++/77284] [5/6 Regression] ICE on valid C++11 code using initializer list: in potential_constant_expression_1, at cp/constexpr.c:5480

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77284 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] ICE on |[5/6 Regression] ICE on

[Bug c++/77545] [7 Regression] ICE on valid C++11 code: in potential_constant_expression_1, at cp/constexpr.c:5480

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77545 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/77545] [7 Regression] ICE on valid C++11 code: in potential_constant_expression_1, at cp/constexpr.c:5480

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77545 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Wed Jan 4 17:47:04 2017 New Revision: 244062 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244062=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/77545 PR c++/77284 * constexpr.c

[Bug c++/77284] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE on valid C++11 code using initializer list: in potential_constant_expression_1, at cp/constexpr.c:5480

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77284 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Wed Jan 4 17:47:04 2017 New Revision: 244062 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244062=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/77545 PR c++/77284 * constexpr.c

[Bug c++/77545] [7 Regression] ICE on valid C++11 code: in potential_constant_expression_1, at cp/constexpr.c:5480

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77545 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c/78989] New: Missing -Waddress warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989 Bug ID: 78989 Summary: Missing -Waddress warning Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug middle-end/78977] [7 Regression] g++7 snprintf() of double produces wrong code with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78977 --- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor --- Thanks. The preprocessed file is what we need. I see two snprintf calls being optimized in the SEQAN_TEST_test_random_beta_write function: On line 52569 substituting 3 for snprintf return value (output

[Bug tree-optimization/78899] [7 Regression] Vestorized loop with optmized mask stores motion is completely deleted after r242520.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78899 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #40403|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug bootstrap/78984] [4.9 regression] bootstrap fails while creating 32-bit libgcc on 64-bit x86_64-linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78984 --- Comment #6 from Andreas Schwab --- Note that if you use --with-ld, -B no longer works.

[Bug target/57583] large switches with jump tables are horribly broken on m68k

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57583 --- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #9) > Sounds good. I can give it a try in the following days or weeks and see if I > can get a C code with such large switch statements

[Bug bootstrap/78984] [4.9 regression] bootstrap fails while creating 32-bit libgcc on 64-bit x86_64-linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78984 --- Comment #5 from bruno at clisp dot org --- Thanks Jakub. The ld --version and "-m elf_i386 -L /usr/lib/" trick solves it! (I was already using the "as --32" trick.) Another way is to define a simpler ld32 script == ld32

[Bug c/78987] Wrong location of a binary expression for -Waddress

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78987 --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška --- C++ related issue: PR78988.

[Bug c++/78988] New: Wrong location of a binary expression for -Waddress

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78988 Bug ID: 78988 Summary: Wrong location of a binary expression for -Waddress Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal

[Bug c/78987] New: Wrong location of a binary expression for -Waddress

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78987 Bug ID: 78987 Summary: Wrong location of a binary expression for -Waddress Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal

[Bug c++/78986] New: template inner classes are not affected by visibility specifiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78986 Bug ID: 78986 Summary: template inner classes are not affected by visibility specifiers Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/78968] conflict between gnu's __cxa_thread_atexit and LLVM's/FreeBSD's implementation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78968 --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely --- Trunk no longer defines __cxa_thread_atexit if it's found in libc. We might want to backport this to the gcc-5-branch and gcc-6-branch. I will try to test this in a FreeBSD 11 VM some time soon.

[Bug libstdc++/78968] conflict between gnu's __cxa_thread_atexit and LLVM's/FreeBSD's implementation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78968 --- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Wed Jan 4 15:41:19 2017 New Revision: 244057 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244057=gcc=rev Log: PR78968 add configure check for __cxa_thread_atexit in libc PR

[Bug rtl-optimization/78932] [ARM] -O2 generates wrong code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78932 --- Comment #2 from xqr4n54r1 at hotmail dot com --- Created attachment 40457 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40457=edit memcpy instead of get_unaligned_be * I wrote memcpy instead of get_unaligned_be{16|32} and I saw that

[Bug c++/66735] [C++14] lambda init-capture fails for const references

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66735 --- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell --- Author: nathan Date: Wed Jan 4 15:23:40 2017 New Revision: 244056 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244056=gcc=rev Log: cp/ PR c++/66735 * cp-tree.h (DECLTYPE_FOR_REF_CAPTURE):

[Bug c++/66735] [C++14] lambda init-capture fails for const references

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66735 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/54367] [meta-bug] lambda expressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367 Bug 54367 depends on bug 66735, which changed state. Bug 66735 Summary: [C++14] lambda init-capture fails for const references https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66735 What|Removed |Added

[Bug sanitizer/57507] gcc 4.8: thread sanitizer: std::thread false(?) positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57507 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug pch/78970] GCC crashes if input file is dash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78970 --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 40456 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40456=edit Untested patch

[Bug pch/78970] GCC crashes if input file is dash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78970 --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 40455 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40455=edit Untested patch

[Bug pch/78970] GCC crashes if input file is dash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78970 --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- Ok, basic problem is in _cpp_save_file_entries, where we calculate md5sum of all inputs files. Providing '-' will cause to have input file as fd == 0 and ff = fdopen (f->fd, "rb");

[Bug bootstrap/78985] [7 Regression] profiledbootstrap failure by -Wuninitialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78985 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.0

[Bug bootstrap/78985] New: [7 Regression] profiledbootstrap failure by -Wuninitialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78985 Bug ID: 78985 Summary: [7 Regression] profiledbootstrap failure by -Wuninitialized Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: build, diagnostic

[Bug middle-end/78977] [7 Regression] g++7 snprintf() of double produces wrong code with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78977 --- Comment #10 from Hannes Hauswedell --- Created attachment 40454 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40454=edit intermediate for O3 -fno-printf-return-value

[Bug middle-end/78977] [7 Regression] g++7 snprintf() of double produces wrong code with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78977 --- Comment #9 from Hannes Hauswedell --- Created attachment 40453 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40453=edit intermediate for O3

[Bug libstdc++/78968] conflict between gnu's __cxa_thread_atexit and LLVM's/FreeBSD's implementation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78968 --- Comment #14 from Hannes Hauswedell --- sorry, please ignore the attachments, bugzilla dropped me in a different issue than planned.

[Bug libstdc++/78968] conflict between gnu's __cxa_thread_atexit and LLVM's/FreeBSD's implementation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78968 --- Comment #13 from Hannes Hauswedell --- Created attachment 40452 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40452=edit intermediate for O3 -fno-printf-return-value

  1   2   >