[Bug ada/68171] Default value in record for component with predicate causes bug box

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68171 --- Comment #1 from Troy --- As an aside, the test is based on an example in the Ada 2012 Rationale. The original uses Static_Predicate, but fails to compile with gnat 4.9.2. That is why I used Dynamic_Predicate instead.

[Bug target/68172] New: [6 Regression] LTO/PGO bootstrapped compiler is miscompiled (looping in sched_rgn_init)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68172 Bug ID: 68172 Summary: [6 Regression] LTO/PGO bootstrapped compiler is miscompiled (looping in sched_rgn_init) Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Sev

[Bug libfortran/51119] MATMUL slow for large matrices

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119 --- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig --- Another issue: What should we do if the user supplies an external subroutine DGEMM which does something unrelated? I suppose we should then make DGEMM (and SGEMM) an intrinsic subroutine.

[Bug target/66033] rs6000 nops removed by rtl_dce

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66033 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/68173] New: gcc does not terminate with -O0 on source file with a very large expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68173 Bug ID: 68173 Summary: gcc does not terminate with -O0 on source file with a very large expression Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: nor

[Bug fortran/68174] New: Length parameter in character allocation not recognized as a scalar (regression from 5.2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68174 Bug ID: 68174 Summary: Length parameter in character allocation not recognized as a scalar (regression from 5.2) Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED S

[Bug c/68173] gcc does not terminate with -O0 on source file with a very large expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68173 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Can you check if you are swapping (that is if the memory usage is high).

[Bug fortran/68174] Length parameter in character allocation not recognized as a scalar (regression from 5.2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68174 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/68108] [6 regression] erroneous error message 'scalar integer expression expected'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68108 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added CC||neil.n.carlson at gmail dot com -

[Bug ipa/68175] New: g++ 5.2.1 produces broken executables with devirtualization enabled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68175 Bug ID: 68175 Summary: g++ 5.2.1 produces broken executables with devirtualization enabled Product: gcc Version: 5.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/68173] gcc does not terminate with -O0 on source file with a very large expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68173 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org --- Co

[Bug c/68173] gcc does not terminate with -O0 on source file with a very large expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68173 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||memory-hog --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pi

[Bug fortran/67982] Incorrect -Wunused-function warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67982 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug fortran/45676] Move array assignments out of loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45676 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/36854] [meta-bug] fortran front-end optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36854 Bug 36854 depends on bug 45676, which changed state. Bug 45676 Summary: Move array assignments out of loop https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45676 What|Removed |Added -

[Bug fortran/30409] [fortran] missed optimization with pure function arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30409 --- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig --- *** Bug 45676 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c/68173] gcc does not terminate with -O0 on source file with a very large expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68173 --- Comment #4 from Robert Clausecker --- No, it wasn't swapping, although I probably didn't let it run long enough to exhaust all my memory (8 GiB). Either way, the file compiles pretty quickly with -O3 so something seems to be wrong when no opt

[Bug pch/68176] New: [4.8/4.9 Regression] all pch tests fail on eglibc systems (with bits/predefs.h)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68176 Bug ID: 68176 Summary: [4.8/4.9 Regression] all pch tests fail on eglibc systems (with bits/predefs.h) Product: gcc Version: 4.9.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/68177] New: Lambda capture doesn't work correctly when lambda is used in a pack expansion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68177 Bug ID: 68177 Summary: Lambda capture doesn't work correctly when lambda is used in a pack expansion Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: nor

[Bug pch/68176] [4.8/4.9 Regression] all pch tests fail on eglibc systems (with bits/predefs.h)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68176 --- Comment #1 from Nix --- I can confirm that reverting the fix for bug 65550 makes the pch failures go away on my increasingly creaky eglibc 2.18 systems. So that's the smoking gun.

[Bug c++/68177] Lambda capture doesn't work correctly when lambda is used in a pack expansion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68177 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/68178] New: [arm] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68178 Bug ID: 68178 Summary: [arm] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: no

[Bug fortran/68153] ICE for intrinsic reshape with negative dim in effective shape

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68153 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/68151] ICE on using select case with function of wrong type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68151 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug go/67968] go1: internal compiler error: in write_specific_type_functions, at go/gofrontend/types.cc:1812

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67968 --- Comment #14 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: ian Date: Sun Nov 1 20:46:04 2015 New Revision: 229642 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229642&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR go/67968 compiler: Traverse types of call expressio

[Bug go/67968] go1: internal compiler error: in write_specific_type_functions, at go/gofrontend/types.cc:1812

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67968 --- Comment #16 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: ian Date: Sun Nov 1 20:46:37 2015 New Revision: 229644 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229644&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR go/67968 compiler: Traverse types of call expressio

[Bug go/67968] go1: internal compiler error: in write_specific_type_functions, at go/gofrontend/types.cc:1812

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67968 --- Comment #15 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: ian Date: Sun Nov 1 20:46:21 2015 New Revision: 229643 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229643&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR go/67968 compiler: Traverse types of call expressio

[Bug go/67968] go1: internal compiler error: in write_specific_type_functions, at go/gofrontend/types.cc:1812

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67968 Ian Lance Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug go/67508] [aarch64] gccgo runtime crashes with CONFIG_ARM64_PGTABLE_LEVELS=4 (48bit VMA)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67508 Ian Lance Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/54070] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong code with allocatable deferred-length (array) function results

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070 neil.n.carlson at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||neil.n.carlson at gmail

[Bug fortran/54070] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong code with allocatable deferred-length (array) function results

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- C

[Bug fortran/66065] ICE on assignment to deferred-length character array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66065 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/54070] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong code with allocatable deferred-length (array) function results

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070 --- Comment #21 from Dominique d'Humieres --- *** Bug 66065 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug fortran/54070] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong code with allocatable deferred-length (array) function results

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070 --- Comment #22 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > What is the status of this issue? It would appear from comment 18 > to be "fixed" insofar as the the provided examples compile, but is > the compiled code correct? This a wrong interpretation: mos

[Bug fortran/54070] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong code with allocatable deferred-length (array) function results

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070 --- Comment #23 from neil.n.carlson at gmail dot com --- Here's an even simpler example with the deferred length character array as a local variable -- not a function result or dummy argument. Sure seems as though the allocate statement itself is

[Bug sanitizer/68099] arm-*-linux-gnueabihf -fsanitize=undefined warning: '' is used uninitialized in this function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68099 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Ben-Avraham --- (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #1) > The gcc developers do not use crosstool, so providing us with a config for > it is of no help. Furthermore, un-preprocessed source means we are unlikel

[Bug sanitizer/68100] runtime segfault ARM boost::regex_replace -fsanitize=undefined member access within misaligned address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68100 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Ben-Avraham --- jonathana@orcam81:~/pub/gcc/bugs$ /homes/jonathana/pub/mxs/tc/2015092100/arm-mxs-linux-gnueabihf/bin/arm-mxs-linux-gnueabihf-gcc -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=/homes/jonathana/pub/mxs/tc/2015092

[Bug c++/68164] Destructor side effect unexpectedly elided

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68164 Casey Carter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||Casey at Carter dot net --- Comment #1 fr

[Bug sanitizer/68099] arm-*-linux-gnueabihf -fsanitize=undefined warning: '' is used uninitialized in this function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68099 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Ben-Avraham --- Created attachment 36633 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36633&action=edit The preprocessed source code

[Bug sanitizer/68099] arm-*-linux-gnueabihf -fsanitize=undefined warning: '' is used uninitialized in this function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68099 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Ben-Avraham --- (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #1) > The gcc developers do not use crosstool, so providing us with a config for > it is of no help. Furthermore, un-preprocessed source means we are unlikel

[Bug c++/68061] Can't use [[deprecated]] with requires clause

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68061 Casey Carter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||Casey at Carter dot net --- Comment #2 fr

[Bug c++/68164] Destructor side effect unexpectedly elided

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68164 --- Comment #2 from W E Brown --- (In reply to Casey Carter from comment #1) > [basic.life]/5 says: > > Before the lifetime of an object has started ... or, after the lifetime of > an object has ended and before the storage which the object occu

[Bug c++/68164] Destructor side effect unexpectedly elided

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68164 --- Comment #3 from Casey Carter --- Apologies for the vagueness of my response; I actually needed your quote from [class.cdtor]/3 to complete it: "To ... access the value of ... a direct non-static member of an object obj, the construction of o

[Bug middle-end/68166] [6 regression] fold-const.c:12040:18: error: aggregate 'md5_ctx ctx' has incomplete type and cannot be defined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68166 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge --- Author: tschwinge Date: Mon Nov 2 07:42:04 2015 New Revision: 229652 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229652&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [PR middle-end/68166] Restore build with fold checking enabled

[Bug middle-end/68166] [6 regression] fold-const.c:12040:18: error: aggregate 'md5_ctx ctx' has incomplete type and cannot be defined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68166 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|