[Bug bootstrap/85850] [9 Regression] gcc 9.0 doesn't compile with Xcode 9.3.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85850 Campbell changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rlcamp.pdx at gmail dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug rtl-optimization/85899] New: ICE in find_fallthru_edge_from, at haifa-sched.c:8059

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85899 Bug ID: 85899 Summary: ICE in find_fallthru_edge_from, at haifa-sched.c:8059 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-on-valid-code Severity:

[Bug fortran/85786] [8/9 Regression] Segfault in associated intrinsic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85786 --- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Angus Gibson from comment #11) > Apologies if this is unrelated to the issue at hand (I don't quite > understand how everything is inter-related yet), but maybe it helps. First > up,

[Bug testsuite/85888] [9 Regression] New test case c-c++-common/attr-nonstring-6.c from r260541 fails with excess errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85888 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor

[Bug target/78849] ICE on initialization of global struct containing __int20 array at varasm.c:4968

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78849 --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Wed May 23 22:33:36 2018 New Revision: 260627 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260627=gcc=rev Log: PR target/78849 * gcc/tree.c (build_common_tree_nodes): Dont set

[Bug web/85837] Listing of all error and warning messages

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85837 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug other/85898] New: I receive a segmentation fault due to an "internal compiler error"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85898 Bug ID: 85898 Summary: I receive a segmentation fault due to an "internal compiler error" Product: gcc Version: 4.9.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/85895] [6/7/8/9 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_array_ref, at fortran/trans-array.c:3518

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85895 --- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 07:46:17PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > This patch causes an error message to be generated. Need to > go find standard language to determine if the reference of > an

[Bug tree-optimization/85897] New: missing strncmp optimization for bound in known range

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85897 Bug ID: 85897 Summary: missing strncmp optimization for bound in known range Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/85873] [8/9 regression] GCC omits array constant in .rodata causing a segmentation fault.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85873 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug c++/85883] class template argument deduction fails in new-expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85883 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug fortran/84894] [F2018] provide ISO_Fortran_binding.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84894 --- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Damian Rouson from comment #6) > Hopefully the OpenCoarrays version will be a useful starting point. Certainly! > The only remaining challenge is to coax the GCC build system into >

[Bug fortran/85895] [6/7/8/9 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_array_ref, at fortran/trans-array.c:3518

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85895 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug c++/85866] [8/9 Regression] too few arguments to function when sfinae on calling pointer to member function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85866 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/85864] [8/9 Regression] template argument string literal operator with default argument doesnt work in templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85864 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug fortran/85896] ICE in gfc_convert_constant(): Unexpected type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85896 --- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz --- This variant should not compile : $ cat z3.f90 program p character(:) :: max print *, max('a','b') end $ gfortran-9-20180520 z3.f90 -static-libgfortran $ a.out b It's a

[Bug fortran/85896] New: ICE in gfc_convert_constant(): Unexpected type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85896 Bug ID: 85896 Summary: ICE in gfc_convert_constant(): Unexpected type Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug fortran/85895] New: [6/7/8/9 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_array_ref, at fortran/trans-array.c:3518

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85895 Bug ID: 85895 Summary: [6/7/8/9 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_array_ref, at fortran/trans-array.c:3518 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/85883] class template argument deduction fails in new-expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85883 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Works with auto y = new Bar{3, 4};

[Bug fortran/84894] [F2018] provide ISO_Fortran_binding.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84894 --- Comment #6 from Damian Rouson --- Sounds good. I agree that it would be great for gfortran to provide ISO_Fortran_binding.h independently. Hopefully the OpenCoarrays version will be a useful starting point. My understanding is that it's

[Bug target/85894] PPC64LE alloca stack slot allocation allows memset to destroy the stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85894 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/85894] New: PPC64LE alloca stack slot allocation allows memset to destroy the stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85894 Bug ID: 85894 Summary: PPC64LE alloca stack slot allocation allows memset to destroy the stack Product: gcc Version: 6.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/65816] Constructor delegation does not perform zero-initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65816 Casey Carter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||Casey at Carter dot net --- Comment #3

[Bug c++/65816] Constructor delegation does not perform zero-initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65816 --- Comment #4 from Casey Carter --- *** Bug 85892 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c++/85892] value-initialization failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85892 Casey Carter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/85892] value-initialization failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85892 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug lto/85893] New: [regression] Variables promoted to Gimple registers by aliasing are not getting debug statements (if -flto used).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85893 Bug ID: 85893 Summary: [regression] Variables promoted to Gimple registers by aliasing are not getting debug statements (if -flto used). Product: gcc Version:

[Bug c++/85892] New: value-initialization failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85892 Bug ID: 85892 Summary: value-initialization failure Product: gcc Version: 8.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug fortran/84487] [8/9 Regression] Large rodate section increase in 465.tonto with r254427

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7 from

[Bug testsuite/85888] [9 Regression] New test case c-c++-common/attr-nonstring-6.c from r260541 fails with excess errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85888 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- The reason why the powerpc64 target expands the call at a different (later) point than other targets is because the first attempt to expand it ends up in the "cmpstrsi" pattern where the expansion fails (as

[Bug c++/85883] class template argument deduction fails in new-expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85883 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/85891] New: [6.4.1 regression] Simple loop is not SLP-vectorized after r196872

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85891 Bug ID: 85891 Summary: [6.4.1 regression] Simple loop is not SLP-vectorized after r196872 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/85836] [meta-bug] Fortran 2018 support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85836 Bug 85836 depends on bug 84894, which changed state. Bug 84894 Summary: [F2018] provide ISO_Fortran_binding.h https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84894 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/84894] [F2018] provide ISO_Fortran_binding.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84894 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|NEW

[Bug rtl-optimization/85099] [meta-bug] selective scheduling issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85099 Bug 85099 depends on bug 79985, which changed state. Bug 79985 Summary: ICE in code_motion_path_driver, at sel-sched.c:6580 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79985 What|Removed |Added

[Bug rtl-optimization/79985] ICE in code_motion_path_driver, at sel-sched.c:6580

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79985 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/79985] ICE in code_motion_path_driver, at sel-sched.c:6580

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79985 --- Comment #9 from Alexander Monakov --- Author: amonakov Date: Wed May 23 15:01:28 2018 New Revision: 260613 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260613=gcc=rev Log: df-scan: remove ad-hoc handling of global regs in asms PR

[Bug testsuite/85888] [9 Regression] New test case c-c++-common/attr-nonstring-6.c from r260541 fails with excess errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85888 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/85890] New: cc1plus runs out of memory in recursive Fibonacci computation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85890 Bug ID: 85890 Summary: cc1plus runs out of memory in recursive Fibonacci computation Product: gcc Version: 7.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug testsuite/85888] [9 Regression] New test case c-c++-common/attr-nonstring-6.c from r260541 fails with excess errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85888 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug testsuite/85888] [9 Regression] New test case c-c++-common/attr-nonstring-6.c from r260541 fails with excess errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85888 --- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- or maybe it is system specific as I wasn't able to duplicate on an x86 system

[Bug libstdc++/85886] std::atomic<> doesn't have value_type and difference_type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85886 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug debug/85887] [6/7 Regression] Missing DW_TAG_lexical_block PC range

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85887 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*

[Bug c++/79133] lambda capture shadowing parameter & decltype confusion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79133 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com

[Bug testsuite/85888] [9 Regression] New test case c-c++-common/attr-nonstring-6.c from r260541 fails with excess errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85888 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Component|other

[Bug c++/85889] New: lambda expression can capture structured bindings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85889 Bug ID: 85889 Summary: lambda expression can capture structured bindings Product: gcc Version: 8.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: accepts-invalid Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/85881] [9 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/pr80481.C -std=gnu++11 scan-assembler-not vmovaps

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85881 Andrey Guskov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andrey.y.guskov at intel dot com ---

[Bug debug/85887] [6.4.1 & 7.3.1 Regression] Missing DW_TAG_lexical_block PC range

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85887 --- Comment #2 from Jason Vas Dias --- Also affects gcc-5.4.0 and gcc-5.5.0 builds.

[Bug other/85888] New: New test case c-c++-common/attr-nonstring-6.c from r260541 fails with excess errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85888 Bug ID: 85888 Summary: New test case c-c++-common/attr-nonstring-6.c from r260541 fails with excess errors Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/85712] [8/9 Regression] ICE in all_phi_incrs_profitable_1 at gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c:3479

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85712 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #5 from Bill

[Bug debug/85887] [6.4.1 & 7.3.1 Regression] Missing DW_TAG_lexical_block PC range

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85887 --- Comment #1 from Jason Vas Dias --- No, it looks like the patch ( https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28937 ) is applied to 6.4.1's and 7.3.1's tree-inline.c, only for some reason it is not working for those compilers.

[Bug debug/85887] New: [6.4.1 & 7.3.1 Regression] Missing DW_TAG_lexical_block PC range

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85887 Bug ID: 85887 Summary: [6.4.1 & 7.3.1 Regression] Missing DW_TAG_lexical_block PC range Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/85886] New: std::atomic<> doesn't have value_type and difference_type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85886 Bug ID: 85886 Summary: std::atomic<> doesn't have value_type and difference_type Product: gcc Version: 8.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/84882] -mstrict-align on aarch64 should not be RejectNegative

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84882 --- Comment #3 from sudi at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: sudi Date: Wed May 23 11:33:09 2018 New Revision: 260604 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260604=gcc=rev Log: [AArch64][PR target/84882] Add mno-strict-align *** gcc/ChangeLog ***

[Bug c++/85885] internal compiler error, gimplify.c related

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85885 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/59922] -finstrument-functions emit false warning "control reaches end of non-void function"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59922 --- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager --- Kinda more important now that -Wreturn-type is on by default

[Bug libgcc/60790] libatomic convenience library selects IFUNC implementation before obtaining cpu info.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60790 --- Comment #11 from Florian Weimer --- Author: fw Date: Wed May 23 11:13:05 2018 New Revision: 260603 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260603=gcc=rev Log: x86: libatomic: Do not assume ELF constructors run before IFUNC resolvers

[Bug c++/80140] missing -Wignored-attributes on function arguments; can lead to spurious -Wunused-parameter or -Wreturn-type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80140 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|missing |missing

[Bug c++/81873] spurious -Wreturn-type calling a locally declared noreturn function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81873 --- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager --- -Wreturn-type is on by default now.

[Bug c++/79996] spurious -Wreturn-type on a function that calls a noreturn function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79996 --- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager --- Might want to revisit this now that -Wreturn-type is on by default

[Bug c++/85885] New: internal compiler error, gimplify.c related

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85885 Bug ID: 85885 Summary: internal compiler error, gimplify.c related Product: gcc Version: 7.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: build Severity: normal Priority:

[Bug c++/85861] g++ -Wconversion misses int to size_t

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85861 --- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #7) > > Does anyone know the history -Wconversion does not already turn on > > sign-conversion warnings for C++ code? This is how historically the C++ FE worked

[Bug tree-optimization/85853] [9 Regression] ICE in vect_is_simple_use, at tree-vect-stmts.c:10233 on ppc64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85853 --- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: rsandifo Date: Wed May 23 10:32:16 2018 New Revision: 260601 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260601=gcc=rev Log: Fix SLP def type when computing masks (PR85853) In this PR, SLP

[Bug tree-optimization/85853] [9 Regression] ICE in vect_is_simple_use, at tree-vect-stmts.c:10233 on ppc64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85853 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug libstdc++/85884] On --enable-vtable-verify --enable-libvtv libstdc++.so contains insecure runpath after install:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85884 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/85883] class template argument deduction fails in new-expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85883 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||stefan.bolus at gmx dot de --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/85882] Value of local variable changes unintentionally if certain optimization are enabled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85882 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/85881] [9 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/pr80481.C -std=gnu++11 scan-assembler-not vmovaps

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85881 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ra Target Milestone|---

[Bug middle-end/85880] Different code generation for uninitialized variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85880 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/85879] [6/7/8/9 Regression] ICE in expand_debug_locations, at cfgexpand.c:5405

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85879 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

[Bug target/85434] Address of stack protector guard spilled to stack on ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434 --- Comment #15 from Thomas Preud'homme --- (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #14) > (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #13) > > Remains now: > > > > 1) add support for PIC access to the guard > > 2) finish cleanup of the

[Bug middle-end/85878] [6/7/8/9 Regression] ICE in convert_mode_scalar, at expr.c:287

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85878 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

[Bug middle-end/85874] gcc points to wrong location when displaying warning for strict overflow warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85874 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Wed May 23 09:07:30 2018 New Revision: 260570 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260570=gcc=rev Log: 2018-05-23 Richard Biener PR middle-end/85874

[Bug middle-end/85874] gcc points to wrong location when displaying warning for strict overflow warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85874 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/85874] gcc points to wrong location when displaying warning for strict overflow warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85874 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Wed May 23 09:06:01 2018 New Revision: 260569 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260569=gcc=rev Log: 2018-05-23 Richard Biener PR middle-end/85874

[Bug middle-end/85874] gcc points to wrong location when displaying warning for strict overflow warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85874 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/85873] [8 regression] GCC omits array constant in .rodata causing a segmentation fault.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85873 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Priority|P3

[Bug fortran/83606] [6/7/8 Regression] co-indexed array RHS yields incorrect result in assignment to vector-indexed LHS

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83606 --- Comment #12 from Damian Rouson --- Thank you, Andre!

[Bug middle-end/85872] False positive for -Wmaybe-unitialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85872 --- Comment #2 from jakub.leszczak at nokia dot com --- > The dependence on TEST is beacause we limit the compile-time it takes to emit > those warnings. But compilation fails when TEST=1 that is when there is more code to compile. So if there

[Bug sanitizer/85556] attribute no_sanitize does not accept multiple options as documented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85556 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug sanitizer/85556] attribute no_sanitize does not accept multiple options as documented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85556 --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Wed May 23 08:26:10 2018 New Revision: 260567 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260567=gcc=rev Log: Subject: Backport r260154 2018-05-23 Martin Liska

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 --- Comment #11 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Wed May 23 08:27:14 2018 New Revision: 260568 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260568=gcc=rev Log: Subject: Backport r260566 2018-05-23 Martin Liska

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 --- Comment #10 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Yuri Gribov from comment #9) > Thanks for commiting this. Review on gcc-patches went stale... Sure, no problem. I've also tested the commit in GCC-8 branch, where I'll install that soon. Note

[Bug middle-end/85881] [9 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/pr80481.C -std=gnu++11 scan-assembler-not vmovaps

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85881 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 --- Comment #9 from Yuri Gribov --- Thanks for commiting this. Review on gcc-patches went stale... On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:41 AM, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 --- Comment #8 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Wed May 23 07:40:43 2018 New Revision: 260566 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260566=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/85822 Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/pr85822.c

[Bug middle-end/85881] [9 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/pr80481.C -std=gnu++11 scan-assembler-not vmovaps

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85881 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last

[Bug libstdc++/85884] New: On --enable-vtable-verify --enable-libvtv libstdc++.so contains insecure runpath after install:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85884 Bug ID: 85884 Summary: On --enable-vtable-verify --enable-libvtv libstdc++.so contains insecure runpath after install: Product: gcc Version: 8.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/85836] [meta-bug] Fortran 2018 support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85836 Bug 85836 depends on bug 84894, which changed state. Bug 84894 Summary: [F2018] provide ISO_Fortran_binding.h https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84894 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/84894] [F2018] provide ISO_Fortran_binding.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84894 Damian Rouson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/84894] [F2018] provide ISO_Fortran_binding.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84894 --- Comment #3 from Damian Rouson --- Oxford University graduate student Daniel Celis Garza has been working on this for the bulk of his 11-week visit with me, which ends next week. For reasons motivated largely by the difficulty of coaxing the

[Bug fortran/82275] gfortran rejects valid & accepts invalid reference to dimension-remapped type SELECT TYPE selector

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82275 --- Comment #9 from Damian Rouson --- Thanks, Paul! Damian