[Bug target/82820] [arm32]ldm/stm instructions Bus error while running with 64bit kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82820 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- ldm/stm should not be used with unaligned memory. Yes it was emulated when using the arm kernel but the arm64 kernel does not emulate them.

[Bug c/82820] New: [arm32]ldm/stm instructions Bus error on AARCH64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82820 Bug ID: 82820 Summary: [arm32]ldm/stm instructions Bus error on AARCH64 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/82788] wrong code with -fstack-clash-protection --param=stack-clash-protection-probe-interval=10 on simple code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82788 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/82820] [arm32]ldm/stm instructions Bus error while running with 64bit kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82820 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/82820] [arm32]ldm/stm instructions Bus error while running with 64bit kernel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82820 --- Comment #2 from zwzhangwen.zhang at huawei dot com --- Hi, I have a testcase for example: typedef struct structA{ int a; int b; int c; }A; typedef struct structB{ int iData; A a; }B; int test(A aa) { aa.a = 123;

[Bug c++/82818] Bad Codegen, delete does not check for nullptrs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82818 --- Comment #2 from dark_sylinc at yahoo dot com.ar --- Created attachment 42540 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42540=edit Workaround. Uncomment "//a.~FastArray();" to make the crash come back

[Bug c++/82818] Bad Codegen, delete does not check for nullptrs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82818 --- Comment #1 from dark_sylinc at yahoo dot com.ar --- Update: 1. Confirmed to be broken with gcc 7.2 2. When I said fsanitize; I meant fsanitize=undefined 3. When code is slightly modified as in the new attachment, the crash is gone. But it

[Bug tree-optimization/82819] New: [8 Regression] [graphite] ICE in set_codegen_error, at graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c:206

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82819 Bug ID: 82819 Summary: [8 Regression] [graphite] ICE in set_codegen_error, at graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c:206 Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/82818] New: Bad Codegen, delete does not check for nullptrs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82818 Bug ID: 82818 Summary: Bad Codegen, delete does not check for nullptrs Product: gcc Version: 6.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/81957] ICE decltype

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81957 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/81957] ICE decltype

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81957 --- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Fri Nov 3 00:13:06 2017 New Revision: 254361 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254361=gcc=rev Log: /cp 2017-11-02 Paolo Carlini PR

[Bug target/79868] aarch64: diagnostic "malformed target %s value" not translateable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79868 --- Comment #10 from Steve Ellcey --- Author: sje Date: Thu Nov 2 21:58:05 2017 New Revision: 254360 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254360=gcc=rev Log: PR target/79868 * gcc.target/aarch64/spellcheck_1.c: Update dg-error

[Bug target/79868] aarch64: diagnostic "malformed target %s value" not translateable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79868 --- Comment #9 from Steve Ellcey --- Author: sje Date: Thu Nov 2 21:56:00 2017 New Revision: 254359 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254359=gcc=rev Log: PR target/79868 * config/aarch64/aarch64-c.c

[Bug c++/70401] [c++1z on mingw]compile variadic template failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70401 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---

[Bug c++/57728] Explicit template instantiation with defaulted method causes missing symbol

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57728 Jens Maurer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jens.maurer at gmx dot net --- Comment

[Bug c++/82710] [8 Regression] Incorrect warning:unnecessary parentheses in declaration of global friend functions [-Werror=parentheses]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82710 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/81096] [8 regression] test case ttest in libbacktrace fails starting with its introduction in r249111

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81096 --- Comment #7 from Wilco --- Is this now fixed on PPC too? If so, it can be closed.

[Bug c++/82710] [8 Regression] Incorrect warning:unnecessary parentheses in declaration of global friend functions [-Werror=parentheses]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82710 --- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell --- Author: nathan Date: Thu Nov 2 18:26:29 2017 New Revision: 254349 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254349=gcc=rev Log: [PR c++/82710] false positive paren warning

[Bug c/82817] New: C frontend errors on SSA name from REG_EXPR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82817 Bug ID: 82817 Summary: C frontend errors on SSA name from REG_EXPR Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug target/82641] Unable to enable crc32 for a certain function with target attribute on ARM (aarch32)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82641 --- Comment #7 from Yichao Yu --- It would be great if `+crc` can work if it's not ambiguous. Requiring `arch=armv8-a+crc` works for me too, and it'll just require more preprocessor checks.

[Bug ada/82813] warning: '.builtin_memcpy' writing between 2 and 6 bytes into a region of size 0 overflows the destination [-Wstringop-overflow=]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82813 --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou --- > The warning will go away once pr80545 is fixed but I wonder if a better > (independent) solution in this case is to detect that the code is, in fact, > unreachable, and avoid emitting it to begin with.

[Bug rtl-optimization/82803] Wildly excessive calls to __tls_get_addr with optimizations enabled.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82803 --- Comment #3 from Alex Mohr --- FWIW a loop is not required. This generates 4 calls to __tls_get_addr: static thread_local int x; int g(); int f() { int *px = if (g()) *px += g(); if (g()) *px += g(); if (g()) *px += g(); return

[Bug ada/82813] warning: '.builtin_memcpy' writing between 2 and 6 bytes into a region of size 0 overflows the destination [-Wstringop-overflow=]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82813 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||80545 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor

[Bug tree-optimization/82788] wrong code with -fstack-clash-protection --param=stack-clash-protection-probe-interval=10 on simple code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82788 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com

[Bug tree-optimization/82816] New: ICE on valid code at -Os and above: in find_widening_optab_handler_and_mode, at optabs-query.c:414

Thread model: posix gcc version 8.0.0 20171102 (experimental) [trunk revision 254338] (GCC) $ $ gcctk -O1 -c small.c $ gcc-7.2.0 -Os -c small.c $ $ gcctk -Os -c small.c during GIMPLE pass: widening_mul small.c: In function ‘f’: small.c:8:6: internal compiler error

[Bug middle-end/82815] New: RTL frontend errors out on const_double

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82815 Bug ID: 82815 Summary: RTL frontend errors out on const_double Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end

[Bug target/82812] ICE in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3706

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82812 jkoval at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jkoval at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug ada/82813] warning: '.builtin_memcpy' writing between 2 and 6 bytes into a region of size 0 overflows the destination [-Wstringop-overflow=]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82813 --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou --- It's unreachable code: [0.23%] [count: INV]: # DEBUG S117b.276 => .builtin_memcpy ([(void *)], pretmp_305, _250); The only predecessor is: [0.32%] [count: INV]: L113b_224 = start_130 + _322;

[Bug ada/82813] warning: '.builtin_memcpy' writing between 2 and 6 bytes into a region of size 0 overflows the destination [-Wstringop-overflow=]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82813 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/82814] New: ICE from submodule character function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82814 Bug ID: 82814 Summary: ICE from submodule character function Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug ipa/82808] [7/8 Regression] LTO clone wrong value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82808 --- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7) > ipa_get_jf_pass_through_result has multiple issues: > > static tree > ipa_get_jf_pass_through_result (struct ipa_jump_func *jfunc, tree input) > { > tree

[Bug ipa/82808] [7/8 Regression] LTO clone wrong value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82808 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- ipa_get_jf_pass_through_result has multiple issues: static tree ipa_get_jf_pass_through_result (struct ipa_jump_func *jfunc, tree input) { tree restype, res; if (ipa_get_jf_pass_through_operation

[Bug ada/82813] New: warning: '.builtin_memcpy' writing between 2 and 6 bytes into a region of size 0 overflows the destination [-Wstringop-overflow=]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82813 Bug ID: 82813 Summary: warning: '.builtin_memcpy' writing between 2 and 6 bytes into a region of size 0 overflows the destination [-Wstringop-overflow=] Product: gcc

[Bug target/82795] [8 Regression] ICE in predicate_mem_writes, at tree-if-conv.c:2251

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82795 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ipa/82808] [7/8 Regression] LTO clone wrong value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82808 --- Comment #6 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #5) > (In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #4) > > Created attachment 42535 [details] > > Untested fix > > > > > Hi, > > The issue here for

[Bug ipa/82808] [7/8 Regression] LTO clone wrong value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82808 --- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor --- (In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #4) > Created attachment 42535 [details] > Untested fix > > Hi, > The issue here for propagating value of 'm' from f_c1 to foo() is that the > jump function

[Bug target/82641] Unable to enable crc32 for a certain function with target attribute on ARM (aarch32)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82641 --- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw --- (In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #5) > My patch adds support for > > > ``` > #pragma GCC push_options > #pragma GCC target("arch=armv8-a+crc") > __attribute__((target("arch=armv8-a+crc")))

[Bug c/51628] __attribute__((packed)) is unsafe in some cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628 --- Comment #35 from Sven --- (In reply to Sven from comment #34) > That is to be > expected, hence gcc should warn about the fact, and the address of a > (potentially) unaligned int is assigned to a regular int* pointer. Sorry, typo: That is

[Bug c/51628] __attribute__((packed)) is unsafe in some cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628 --- Comment #34 from Sven --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #32) > long long is aligned to 4 bytes in struct for i386. Understood. So the aligned(4) was just added to explicitly restating the alignment? Anyhow, the two warnings added by

[Bug ipa/82808] [7/8 Regression] LTO clone wrong value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82808 --- Comment #4 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 42535 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42535=edit Untested fix Hi, The issue here for propagating value of 'm' from f_c1 to foo() is that the jump

[Bug c/51628] __attribute__((packed)) is unsafe in some cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628 --- Comment #33 from H.J. Lu --- [hjl@gnu-skl-1 gcc]$ cat x.c #include #include typedef int aligned_int __attribute__((warn_if_not_aligned(4))); int main(void) { struct foo { char c; aligned_int x; }

[Bug target/82795] [8 Regression] ICE in predicate_mem_writes, at tree-if-conv.c:2251

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82795 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Nov 2 13:13:53 2017 New Revision: 254342 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254342=gcc=rev Log: 2017-11-02 Richard Biener PR

[Bug c/51628] __attribute__((packed)) is unsafe in some cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628 --- Comment #32 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Sven from comment #31) > https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/?view=log=251180 > > I am reading the commit message, and the example doesn't make any sense. > The aligned attribute is for providing

[Bug c/51628] __attribute__((packed)) is unsafe in some cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628 --- Comment #31 from Sven --- https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/?view=log=251180 I am reading the commit message, and the example doesn't make any sense. The aligned attribute is for providing additional alignment guarantees in addition to

[Bug c/51628] __attribute__((packed)) is unsafe in some cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628 --- Comment #30 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #29) > > I don't remember the exact commit number but HJ Lu added it; I added him on > cc with my previous comment, so maybe he can explain. It is r251180.

[Bug target/82809] [8 Regression] ICE in in ix86_vector_duplicate_value, at config/i386/i386.c:41242

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82809 --- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 42534 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42534=edit Candidate fix This patch seems to fix it. Only lightly tested so far.

[Bug target/82809] [8 Regression] ICE in in ix86_vector_duplicate_value, at config/i386/i386.c:41242

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82809 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last

[Bug ipa/82808] [7/8 Regression] LTO clone wrong value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82808 --- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #2) > Works fine with -O2 -fno-inline, but aborts with -flto -O2 -fno-inline. > Does this possibly indicate an issue with streaming ? Oops, no.

[Bug ipa/82808] [7/8 Regression] LTO clone wrong value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82808 --- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Works fine with -O2 -fno-inline, but aborts with -flto -O2 -fno-inline. Does this possibly indicate an issue with streaming ? Thanks, Prathamesh

[Bug target/59865] gnu multiversion calculates wrong target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59865 --- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3) > > I can't reproduce this bug due to my target lacking ifunc support. Someone > with a more capable target will need to test to be able to move this bug out > of

[Bug target/82812] ICE in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3706

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82812 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |8.0 Target Milestone|8.0

[Bug target/82805] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 454.calculix ~6% performance deviation in between 6.3 and 7.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82805 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*

[Bug target/82807] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 473.astar ~6% performance deviation in between 6.3 and 7.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82807 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*

[Bug ipa/82808] [7/8 Regression] LTO clone wrong value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82808 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug target/82809] [8 Regression] ICE in in ix86_vector_duplicate_value, at config/i386/i386.c:41242

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82809 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |8.0 Target Milestone|---

[Bug fortran/53077] replace "Illegal preprocessor directive" message with "Ignoring preprocessor directive at %C. Use -cpp to enable the C preprocessor" (a patch by Tobias included)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53077 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug rtl-optimization/57970] segfault in sched-deps.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57970 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/56412] [4.8] "libtool: cygpath: command not found" for mingw32 host

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56412 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |SUSPENDED --- Comment #8 from Eric

[Bug target/82795] [8 Regression] ICE in predicate_mem_writes, at tree-if-conv.c:2251

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82795 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Well, not really a "regression", it was broken before the original fix. The assert is simply bogus.

[Bug target/82812] ICE in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3706

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82812 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/82812] New: ICE in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3706

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82812 Bug ID: 82812 Summary: ICE in emit_move_insn, at expr.c:3706 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug sanitizer/82802] Potential UBSAN error with pointer difference (32-bits mode)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82802 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/82804] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 470.lbm ~5% performance deviation with r237185

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82804 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |7.2.0 Target Milestone|---

[Bug ipa/82801] [6/7/8 Regression] Internal compiler error with Eigen and __attribute__((always_inline, flatten))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82801 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.5

[Bug c++/82799] [8 Regression] -Wunused-but-set-variable false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82799 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.0

[Bug c++/82797] Suggest -Wshadow suppression for nested if/else

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82797 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug target/82811] New: Assembler error on tic6x-none-elf with march=c64x+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82811 Bug ID: 82811 Summary: Assembler error on tic6x-none-elf with march=c64x+ Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/82796] [6/7/8 Regression] Private+equivalence in used module breaks compilation of pure function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82796 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.5

[Bug target/82795] [8 Regression] ICE in predicate_mem_writes, at tree-if-conv.c:2251

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82795 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug sanitizer/82517] use-after-scope for a variable with big alignment causes a false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82517 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work|8.0 | Known to fail|

[Bug c++/82790] [GCC 5, 6, 7] -Wuseless-cast doesn't detect unnecessary removal of const

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82790 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/82810] New: missed uninitialized variable warning in for/while loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82810 Bug ID: 82810 Summary: missed uninitialized variable warning in for/while loop Product: gcc Version: 6.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/82805] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 454.calculix ~6% performance deviation in between 6.3 and 7.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82805 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug ipa/82808] [7/8 Regression] LTO clone wrong value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82808 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug testsuite/82415] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/naked-1.c scan-assembler-not ret

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82415 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/82809] New: [8 Regression] ICE in in ix86_vector_duplicate_value, at config/i386/i386.c:41242

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82809 Bug ID: 82809 Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in in ix86_vector_duplicate_value, at config/i386/i386.c:41242 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug ipa/82808] New: LTO clone wrong value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82808 Bug ID: 82808 Summary: LTO clone wrong value Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: ipa Assignee:

[Bug testsuite/82415] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/naked-1.c scan-assembler-not ret

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82415 --- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries --- Author: vries Date: Thu Nov 2 09:07:27 2017 New Revision: 254338 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254338=gcc=rev Log: Fix scan-assembler patterns in i386/naked-{1,2}.c 2017-11-02 Tom de Vries

[Bug target/82807] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 473.astar ~6% performance deviation in between 6.3 and 7.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82807 --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 42533 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42533=edit perf diff

[Bug target/82807] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 473.astar ~6% performance deviation in between 6.3 and 7.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82807 --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 42532 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42532=edit perf report

[Bug target/82807] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 473.astar ~6% performance deviation in between 6.3 and 7.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82807 --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 42531 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42531=edit perf annotate

[Bug target/82807] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 473.astar ~6% performance deviation in between 6.3 and 7.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82807 --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 42529 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42529=edit perf annotate

[Bug target/82807] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 473.astar ~6% performance deviation in between 6.3 and 7.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82807 --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 42530 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42530=edit perf report

[Bug target/82807] New: [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 473.astar ~6% performance deviation in between 6.3 and 7.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82807 Bug ID: 82807 Summary: [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 473.astar ~6% performance deviation in between 6.3 and 7.2 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/82805] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 454.calculix ~6% performance deviation in between 6.3 and 7.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82805 --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 42528 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42528=edit perf diff

[Bug driver/82806] New: Stabilize paths in assembler and dumps

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82806 Bug ID: 82806 Summary: Stabilize paths in assembler and dumps Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: driver

[Bug target/82805] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 454.calculix ~6% performance deviation in between 6.3 and 7.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82805 --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 42526 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42526=edit perf report

[Bug target/82804] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 470.lbm ~5% performance deviation with r237185

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82804 --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- Can't be reproduced on Haswell.

[Bug target/82805] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 454.calculix ~6% performance deviation in between 6.3 and 7.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82805 --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 42525 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42525=edit perf report

[Bug target/82805] New: [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 454.calculix ~6% performance deviation in between 6.3 and 7.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82805 Bug ID: 82805 Summary: [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 454.calculix ~6% performance deviation in between 6.3 and 7.2 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/82781] [6/7/8 Regression] Vector extension operators return wrong result in constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82781 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug target/82804] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 470.lbm ~5% performance deviation with r237185

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82804 --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 42524 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42524=edit perf report

[Bug target/82804] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 470.lbm ~5% performance deviation with r237185

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82804 --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 42523 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42523=edit perf annotate

[Bug target/82804] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 470.lbm ~5% performance deviation with r237185

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82804 --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 42522 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42522=edit perf diff

[Bug target/82804] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 470.lbm ~5% performance deviation with r237185

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82804 --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 42521 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42521=edit perf report

[Bug target/82804] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 470.lbm ~5% performance deviation with r237185

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82804 --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 42520 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42520=edit perf annotate

[Bug rtl-optimization/82778] crash: insn does not satisfy its constraints

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82778 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-*-*

[Bug tree-optimization/82776] Unable to optimize the loop when iteration count is unavailable.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82776 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug hsa/82771] FAIL: brig.dg/test/gimple/packed.hsail (internal compiler error)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82771 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/82774] [6/7/8 Regression] Structure constructor and deferred type parameter character component

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82774 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.5

  1   2   >