[Bug c/63326] whether a #pragma is a statement depends on the type of pragma

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326 --- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Chen Gang from comment #17) > I guess the diff below should be OK, I shall give a make check test. I would rather have the C front-end behavior for C++ rather than the opposite way around.

[Bug middle-end/68492] [6 Regression] internal compiler error: in vect_is_simple_use, at tree-vect-stmts.c:8266

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68492 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/67598] [6 Regression] Target powerpc-e500v2-linux-gnuspe failed to bootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67598 Arseny Solokha changed: What|Removed |Added CC||meissner at linux dot vnet.ibm.com

[Bug c/68480] -fno-strict-aliasing not respected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68480 --- Comment #3 from Manjeet Dahiya --- (In reply to Manjeet Dahiya from comment #2) > (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #1) > > Did you mean gcc-5.1.0? > > No. It is for gcc-4.1.0 :) We were checking for equivalence of code > generated

ICE: SEGFAULT in mem rtx - GCC-4.5.1

Hi I am building gcc-4.5.1 cross compiler. I am getting SEGFAULT ICE at simplify-rtx.c:167, i.e. at this function /* If X is a MEM referencing the constant pool, return the real value. Otherwise return X. */

[Bug target/68494] New: [ARM] Use vector multiply by lane

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68494 Bug ID: 68494 Summary: [ARM] Use vector multiply by lane Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug middle-end/68488] [6 Regression] internal compiler error: in expand_insn, at optabs.c:6947

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68488 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/68432] [6 Regression] internal compiler error: in expand_insn, at optabs.c:6947

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68432 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---

[Bug middle-end/68480] -fno-strict-aliasing not respected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68480 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Component|c

[Bug c++/68484] _mm_storel_epi64((__m128i *)x, m); does nothing if "x" is a "volatile" ptr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68484 --- Comment #2 from Vladimir Sedach --- It is not just about "long long". _mm_store_ps() is also wrong, while _mm_store_pd() / _mm_store_si128() are OK: #include #include int main(int argc, const char *argv[]) {

[Bug c++/68495] New: Error when expanding nontype variadic argument in trailing return type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68495 Bug ID: 68495 Summary: Error when expanding nontype variadic argument in trailing return type Product: gcc Version: 5.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libfortran/51119] MATMUL slow for large matrices

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119 --- Comment #20 from Joost VandeVondele --- (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #19) > If I can get something working I am thinking something like > -fexternal-blas-n, if -n not given then default to current libblas > behaviour. This way

[Bug target/68390] Incorrect code due to indirect tail call of varargs function with hard float ABI

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68390 --- Comment #1 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kugan Date: Sun Nov 22 23:07:58 2015 New Revision: 230730 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230730=gcc=rev Log: gcc/ChangeLog: 2015-11-23 Kugan Vivekanandarajah

[Bug c++/42121] g++ should warn or error on internal 0 size array in struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42121 --- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor --- Patch posted for review: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg02595.html

[Bug target/38939] MULLW on often faster than SLWI ADD SLWI ADD..

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38939 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/68490] New: error initializing a structure with a flexible array member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68490 Bug ID: 68490 Summary: error initializing a structure with a flexible array member Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug go/66368] [5 Regression] go tool crashes on powerpc-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66368 --- Comment #9 from Ian Lance Taylor --- I'm not having any luck reproducing this. I built a 32-bit PPC GNU/Linux (on the GCC compile farm, which is a PPC64 machine, using glibc 2.18). I deleted the libgo files and rebuilt them with

[Bug libfortran/51119] MATMUL slow for large matrices

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119 --- Comment #19 from Jerry DeLisle --- If I can get something working I am thinking something like -fexternal-blas-n, if -n not given then default to current libblas behaviour. This way users have some control. With GPUs, it is not unusual to

[Bug fortran/52251] Nonadvancing I/O and the t edit descriptor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52251 --- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle --- Author: jvdelisle Date: Mon Nov 23 00:40:51 2015 New Revision: 230734 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230734=gcc=rev Log: 2015-11-22 Jerry DeLisle PR libfortran/52251

[Bug middle-end/68492] New: [6 Regression] internal compiler error: in vect_is_simple_use, at tree-vect-stmts.c:8266

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68492 Bug ID: 68492 Summary: [6 Regression] internal compiler error: in vect_is_simple_use, at tree-vect-stmts.c:8266 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/68489] New: arrays of flexible array members are silently accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68489 Bug ID: 68489 Summary: arrays of flexible array members are silently accepted Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug libgcc/68491] New: libgcc calls __get_cpuid with 0 level breaks on early athlon.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68491 Bug ID: 68491 Summary: libgcc calls __get_cpuid with 0 level breaks on early athlon. Product: gcc Version: 4.8.4 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/68493] New: [6 Regression] [graphite] ICE in copy_loop_phi_args

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68493 Bug ID: 68493 Summary: [6 Regression] [graphite] ICE in copy_loop_phi_args Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c/68480] -fno-strict-aliasing not respected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68480 --- Comment #2 from Manjeet Dahiya --- (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #1) > Did you mean gcc-5.1.0? No. It is for gcc-4.1.0 :) We were checking for equivalence of code generated across different versions and found this bug. We saw

[Bug c/68480] New: strict-aliasing not respected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68480 Bug ID: 68480 Summary: strict-aliasing not respected Product: gcc Version: 4.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c/68485] New: ICE while building gpsd package on microblaze

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68485 Bug ID: 68485 Summary: ICE while building gpsd package on microblaze Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug fortran/47040] Make error message for empty array constructor more helpful/correct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47040 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug ada/68481] New: GNAT rejects protected procedure with aspect Interrupt_Handler => True (explicitly)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68481 Bug ID: 68481 Summary: GNAT rejects protected procedure with aspect Interrupt_Handler => True (explicitly) Product: gcc Version: 5.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/44995] define a macro for presence of -mregnames option

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44995 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug target/43871] -mcpu=power4 -mtune=cell emits power7/cell-only opcodes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43871 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug target/68482] New: No vectorization for x86-64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68482 Bug ID: 68482 Summary: No vectorization for x86-64 Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug other/68483] New: gcc 5.2: suboptimal code compared to 4.9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68483 Bug ID: 68483 Summary: gcc 5.2: suboptimal code compared to 4.9 Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: other

[Bug testsuite/43496] gcc.target/powerpc/gcse-1.c fails on powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu with -fpic/-fPIC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43496 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/41868] cell microcode instruction (addic.) is generated for a trivial loop with -O2 optimizations, hurting performance badly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41868 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug c/68480] -fno-strict-aliasing not respected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68480 --- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab --- Did you mean gcc-5.1.0?

[Bug target/43763] segfault when using by -mwarn-cell-microcode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43763 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug lto/42534] ICE with -flto when using __attribute__((__aligned__(X)))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42534 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/68484] New: _mm_storel_epi64((__m128i *)x, m); does nothing if "x" is a "volatile" ptr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68484 Bug ID: 68484 Summary: _mm_storel_epi64((__m128i *)x, m); does nothing if "x" is a "volatile" ptr Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/67460] [5 Regression] Spurious: f951: all warnings being treated as errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67460 --- Comment #9 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: dominiq Date: Sun Nov 22 19:23:39 2015 New Revision: 230724 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230724=gcc=rev Log: 2015-11-22 Dominique d'Humieres

[Bug fortran/67460] [5 Regression] Spurious: f951: all warnings being treated as errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67460 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/68486] [6 Regression] 187.facerec in SPEC CPU 2000 failed to build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68486 --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Sun Nov 22 19:41:20 2015 New Revision: 230726 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230726=gcc=rev Log: 2015-11-22 Steven G. Kargl PR

[Bug fortran/68486] [6 Regression] 187.facerec in SPEC CPU 2000 failed to build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68486 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0 --- Comment #4 from kargl

[Bug fortran/48298] [F03] User-Defined Derived-Type IO (DTIO)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298 --- Comment #14 from Jerry DeLisle --- Created attachment 36805 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36805=edit Expanded test case Attached is an expanded test case. Could someone review and confirm this is valid. I need to

[Bug fortran/68218] ALLOCATE with size given by a module function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68218 --- Comment #4 from Harald Anlauf --- (In reply to vehre from comment #3) > Author: vehre > Date: Sun Nov 8 17:37:42 2015 > New Revision: 229956 > > URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229956=gcc=rev Is it possible to commit this also to the

[Bug rtl-optimization/37471] Move invariant pulls too many cmps out of a loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37471 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/36770] PowerPC missed autoincrement opportunity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36770 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2008-07-09 18:22:19 |2015-11-22 CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/37262] Two branches of the same condition being emitted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37262 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/68227] ICE on using variable limit in forall header (gfc_do_allocate)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68227 --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > This patch ... removes the ICE and it passes regression testing. Confirmed.

[Bug fortran/52622] ICE in gfortran 4.6.3, x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52622 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug fortran/52622] ICE in gfortran 4.6.3, x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52622 --- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Is the test case corrupted somehow? ... This is what I get on x86_64-apple-darwin14 when there is no ICE, but depending on the "mood" of my machine I sometime I get the ICEs reported in comment 7.

[Bug fortran/68486] [6 Regression] 187.facerec in SPEC CPU 2000 failed to build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68486 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/68484] _mm_storel_epi64((__m128i *)x, m); does nothing if "x" is a "volatile" ptr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68484 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --- -fno-strict-aliasing The intrinsic is implemented inline as: *(long long *)__P = ... which exposes the strict aliasing. I don't know how much we want to promise for those functions. It would be possible to use

[Bug target/68482] No vectorization for x86-64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68482 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --- The extra cast so 32-bit unsigned and 64-bit pointers can interact confuses the compiler. Trunk (gcc-6) seems to work fine though, can you confirm?

[Bug c/63303] Pointer subtraction is broken when using -fsanitize=undefined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63303 Szabolcs Nagy changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nszabolcs at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/36693] missed optimization for pointer access with offset on powerpc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36693 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/68487] New: [concepts] bad "invalid reference to variadic concept" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68487 Bug ID: 68487 Summary: [concepts] bad "invalid reference to variadic concept" error Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/68486] New: [6 Regression] 187.facerec in SPEC CPU 2000 failed to build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68486 Bug ID: 68486 Summary: [6 Regression] 187.facerec in SPEC CPU 2000 failed to build Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/68486] [6 Regression] 187.facerec in SPEC CPU 2000 failed to build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68486 --- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Created attachment 36804 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36804=edit Test showing the problem

[Bug libfortran/51119] MATMUL slow for large matrices

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119 --- Comment #17 from Jerry DeLisle --- I have done some experimenting. Since gcc supports OMP and I think to some extent ACC why not come up with a MATMUL that exploits these if present? On the darwin platform discussed in comment #12, the

[Bug target/68482] No vectorization for x86-64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68482 --- Comment #2 from lvqcl.mail at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1) > The extra cast so 32-bit unsigned and 64-bit pointers can interact confuses > the compiler. Trunk (gcc-6) seems to work fine though, can you confirm?

[Bug libfortran/51119] MATMUL slow for large matrices

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51119 --- Comment #18 from Joost VandeVondele --- (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #17) > I have done some experimenting. Since gcc supports OMP and I think to some > extent ACC why not come up with a MATMUL that exploits these if present?

[Bug other/68483] gcc 5.2: suboptimal code compared to 4.9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68483 --- Comment #1 from lvqcl.mail at gmail dot com --- (In reply to lvqcl.mail from comment #0) "gcc version 6.0.0 20151121 (experimental)" from dongsheng-daily (mingw-w64) generates the same code as 4.9.2. So this regression was fixed in 6.x

[Bug middle-end/68488] New: [6 Regression] internal compiler error: in expand_insn, at optabs.c:6947

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68488 Bug ID: 68488 Summary: [6 Regression] internal compiler error: in expand_insn, at optabs.c:6947 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/63326] whether a #pragma is a statement depends on the type of pragma

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326 --- Comment #17 from Chen Gang --- I guess the diff below should be OK, I shall give a make check test. diff --git a/gcc/c/c-parser.c b/gcc/c/c-parser.c index 7b10764..257 100644 --- a/gcc/c/c-parser.c +++ b/gcc/c/c-parser.c @@ -5170,7