[Bug middle-end/90967] -Os produces more code than -O1

2019-06-23 Thread glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90967 --- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse --- Even with -std=c++2a to disable extern templates, we only optimize at -Os, both -O2 and -O3 fail to simplify (bad inlining decisions?).

[Bug c/90956] Failed on the PRINT

2019-06-23 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90956 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/87695] Arduino: ICE with avr and LTO

2019-06-23 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87695 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||oferco at inter dot net.il --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/90967] -Os produces more code than -O1

2019-06-23 Thread glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90967 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --- Try -std=c++2a? The difference is whether the string functions are extern templates (usual) or not (experimental support for future standards). I would consider it a DUP of all the PRs that show the bad

[Bug c++/90967] New: -Os produces more code than -O1

2019-06-23 Thread oliverst at online dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90967 Bug ID: 90967 Summary: -Os produces more code than -O1 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/90408] >= -O2 suddenly generates code

2019-06-23 Thread oliverst at online dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90408 Oliver Stoeneberg changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||4.8.5, 4.9.4, 5.4.0, 6.3.0

[Bug fortran/90903] Implement runtime checks for bit manipulation intrinsics

2019-06-23 Thread anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90903 --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Patch addressing the bit manipulation functions so far: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-06/msg00138.html

[Bug c++/67184] Missed optimization with C++11 final specifier

2019-06-23 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67184 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug rtl-optimization/90813] [10 regression] gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_51.f90 fails (SIGSEGV) after 272084

2019-06-23 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813 --- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool --- sched2 swaps the two insns (37 and 40 for me -- use -dp to see the numbers in your .s file, use -da if you want lots of dumps, -dap together). So why did sched2 decide it can swap these? They are in

[Bug rtl-optimization/90813] [10 regression] gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_51.f90 fails (SIGSEGV) after 272084

2019-06-23 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P4 |P3 --- Comment #16 from Thomas Koenig

[Bug rtl-optimization/90813] [10 regression] gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_51.f90 fails (SIGSEGV) after 272084

2019-06-23 Thread paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813 --- Comment #15 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com --- Hi Thomas, I had come to the conclusion that the optimizer is screwing up somehow and was going to suggest testing -fno-inline. Your splitting the files was definitely the smoking

[Bug rtl-optimization/90813] [10 regression] gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_51.f90 fails (SIGSEGV) after 272084

2019-06-23 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Component|fortran |rtl-optimization --- Comment #14 from

[Bug fortran/90813] [10 regression] gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_51.f90 fails (SIGSEGV) after 272084

2019-06-23 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813 --- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool --- addis 9,2,.LC1@toc@ha ld 9,.LC1@toc@l(9) ... ld 9,0(9) ... ld 10,0(9) ... mtctr 10 ... bctrl .LC1: .quad __f_MOD_c_ So that symbol is

[Bug c++/90966] [9/10 Regression] ICE in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:16155

2019-06-23 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90966 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Target

[Bug c++/90966] [9/10 Regression] ICE in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:16155

2019-06-23 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90966 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Started with r263511.

[Bug c++/90966] [9/10 Regression] ICE in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:16155

2019-06-23 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90966 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/90813] [10 regression] gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_51.f90 fails (SIGSEGV) after 272084

2019-06-23 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813 --- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig --- Another data point. If the test case is split across two files (the module separate from the main program), then it works.

[Bug fortran/90813] [10 regression] gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_51.f90 fails (SIGSEGV) after 272084

2019-06-23 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug fortran/90813] [10 regression] gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_51.f90 fails (SIGSEGV) after 272084

2019-06-23 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813 --- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig --- I checked the *.optimized dump on POWER and x86_64 against each other, and there are no differences (some renumbering of variables, that's all). Looking further...

[Bug fortran/90948] Polymorphic intrinsic assignment...

2019-06-23 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90948 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/90813] [10 regression] gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_51.f90 fails (SIGSEGV) after 272084

2019-06-23 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Target|powerpc64*-unknown-linux-gn |powerpc64*-unknown-linux-gn

[Bug fortran/90813] [10 regression] gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_51.f90 fails (SIGSEGV) after 272084

2019-06-23 Thread pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90813 --- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #7) > I think we can move this to NEW. Please look at comment #10 to PR90786. I am at a complete loss on this one. What to do? Paul

[Bug fortran/90786] [7/8/9 Regression] ICE on procedure pointer assignment to function with class pointer result

2019-06-23 Thread pault at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90786 --- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas --- Created attachment 46511 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46511=edit x86_64 Assembler for testcase Hi Thomas and Andrew, I am at a complete loss on this one. The attached x86_64

[Bug c++/89640] [9 Regression] g++ chokes on lambda with __attribute__

2019-06-23 Thread frankhb1989 at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89640 frankhb1989 at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||frankhb1989 at gmail dot

[Bug c++/90966] New: ICE in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:16155

2019-06-23 Thread frankhb1989 at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90966 Bug ID: 90966 Summary: ICE in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:16155 Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++