[Bug testsuite/77710] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-4.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77710 Thomas Preud'homme changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||7.0 --- Comment #5 from Thomas

[Bug target/77933] New: Stack corruption on ARM when using high registers and __builtin_return_address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77933 Bug ID: 77933 Summary: Stack corruption on ARM when using high registers and __builtin_return_address Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/77922] Bogus suggestion: ‘constexpr’ does not name a type; did you mean ‘constexpr’?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77922 --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0) > constexpr int a = 1; > with -std=c++98 gives > pr.C:1:1: error: ‘constexpr’ does not name a type; did you mean ‘constexpr’? > constexpr int a = 1; > ^

[Bug libstdc++/66146] call_once not C++11-compliant on ppc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/77922] Bogus suggestion: ‘constexpr’ does not name a type; did you mean ‘constexpr’?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77922 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug testsuite/77710] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-4.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77710 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #5) Thanks for fixing it! I keep making this mistake because { target *-*-*-* } matches on my own development boxes. I wonder why DejaGnu doesn't accept {

[Bug testsuite/77710] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-4.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77710 --- Comment #7 from Thomas Preud'homme --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6) > (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #5) > > Thanks for fixing it! I keep making this mistake because { target *-*-*-* } > matches on my own

[Bug sanitizer/77538] segmentation fault: thread sanitizer shadow stack overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77538 --- Comment #9 from Dmitry Vyukov --- Humm... what are they waiting for? Is it also core dump? Stack for the sleeping task is missing for some reason. What kernel version do you use? Maybe the problem is with the kernel? Isn't it too old?.

[Bug sanitizer/77538] segmentation fault: thread sanitizer shadow stack overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77538 --- Comment #8 from peien luo --- In another case, the process got stuck, compiled with gcc 4.9.4. I will try a different version of gcc. The proc stack info is: [god@localhost 5019]$ cat task/*/status | grep State State: D (disk sleep) State:

[Bug c++/77935] New: uninstantiated template constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77935 Bug ID: 77935 Summary: uninstantiated template constructor Product: gcc Version: 6.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug debug/77931] PASS->FAIL: gdb.cp/namespace.exp: print ina

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77931 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Tue Oct 11 12:52:44 2016 New Revision: 240991 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240991=gcc=rev Log: 2016-10-11 Richard Biener PR debug/77931

[Bug target/77924] -mfloat128-type change broke AIX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77924 Michael Meissner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/77921] [7 Regression] tree-ssanames.c miscompiled during PGO bootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77921 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/77924] -mfloat128-type change broke AIX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77924 --- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner --- Author: meissner Date: Tue Oct 11 14:12:09 2016 New Revision: 240994 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240994=gcc=rev Log: 2016-10-11 Michael Meissner PR

[Bug target/77934] New: pattern for mtvsrdd needs to use b constraint not r

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77934 Bug ID: 77934 Summary: pattern for mtvsrdd needs to use b constraint not r Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/77929] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: non-trivial conversion at assignment)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77929 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug target/77933] Stack corruption on ARM when using high registers and __builtin_return_address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77933 Thomas Preud'homme changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Known to fail|

[Bug c++/77943] New: Optimization incorrectly commons noexcept calls with non-noexcept calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77943 Bug ID: 77943 Summary: Optimization incorrectly commons noexcept calls with non-noexcept calls Product: gcc Version: 6.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug debug/77931] PASS->FAIL: gdb.cp/namespace.exp: print ina

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77931 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug debug/77931] PASS->FAIL: gdb.cp/namespace.exp: print ina

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77931 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- It's that way in the original BIND_EXPR already. So it looks like we need to handle this gracefully :/ Index: gcc/gimple-low.c === ---

[Bug debug/77931] PASS->FAIL: gdb.cp/namespace.exp: print ina

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77931 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Preud'homme --- Confirmed, this patch fixes the issue. Thanks!

[Bug c/77932] New: [GRAPHITE] gmp-6.1.0, 6.1.1 breaks because of fgraphite-identity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77932 Bug ID: 77932 Summary: [GRAPHITE] gmp-6.1.0, 6.1.1 breaks because of fgraphite-identity Product: gcc Version: 5.4.0 URL:

[Bug fortran/77942] [6/7 Regression] ICE: Floating point exception, in gfc_simplify_cshift, at fortran/simplify.c:1845

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77942 --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Tue Oct 11 21:03:04 2016 New Revision: 241008 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241008=gcc=rev Log: 2016-10-11 Steven G. Kargl PR

[Bug c++/77939] New: Valid program rejected due to access control

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77939 Bug ID: 77939 Summary: Valid program rejected due to access control Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug libstdc++/77936] New: include/parallel/checkers.h:66: pointless local variable ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77936 Bug ID: 77936 Summary: include/parallel/checkers.h:66: pointless local variable ? Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor

[Bug tree-optimization/77938] missing tailcall optimization in case when local variable escapes that goes out of scope before the possible tail call site

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77938 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug c++/77911] Comparing function pointers in a constexpr function can produce an error.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77911 --- Comment #2 from Dr Hilbert Swan --- If a similar thing is done with ints the code would look like this: constexpr int i[] = { 1, 2, 3 }; constexpr int FindMatchingIdx(const int w, const int idx) { return (w == i[idx]) ? (idx) :

[Bug tree-optimization/77937] [7 Regression] ICE: in replace_one_candidate, at gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c:3370

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/77938] missing tailcall optimization in case when local variable escapes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77938 --- Comment #1 from Ivan Sorokin --- The generated code for caller is the following: caller(): sub rsp, 24 lea rdi, [rsp+12] callescape(int&) callcallee() add rsp, 24 ret

[Bug tree-optimization/77938] New: missing tailcall optimization in case when local variable escapes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77938 Bug ID: 77938 Summary: missing tailcall optimization in case when local variable escapes Product: gcc Version: 6.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/77937] New: [7 Regression] ICE: in replace_one_candidate, at gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c:3370

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937 Bug ID: 77937 Summary: [7 Regression] ICE: in replace_one_candidate, at gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c:3370 Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/77937] [7 Regression] ICE: in replace_one_candidate, at gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c:3370

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/77941] ICE in expand_expr_addr_expr_1, at expr.c:7805

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77941 --- Comment #2 from Gerhard Steinmetz --- For completeness, with older test versions (--enable-checking=yes) : $ gfortran-7-20161002 z1.f90 z1.f90:2:0: print *, f(2_8**32+1) internal compiler

[Bug fortran/77940] ICE in walk_coarray, at fortran/trans-array.c:6684

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77940 --- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz --- For completeness : $ cat y1.f90 module m type t end type contains subroutine s1(x) type(t) :: x[*] end subroutine s2(x) type(t) ::

[Bug fortran/77940] ICE in walk_coarray, at fortran/trans-array.c:6684

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77940 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code

[Bug fortran/77942] [6/7 Regression] ICE: Floating point exception, in gfc_simplify_cshift, at fortran/simplify.c:1845

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77942 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

[Bug fortran/77941] ICE in expand_expr_addr_expr_1, at expr.c:7805

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77941 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code

[Bug tree-optimization/77937] [7 Regression] ICE: in replace_one_candidate, at gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c:3370

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937 --- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt --- Does not reproduce on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu. Can you please report the target triple?

[Bug fortran/77940] New: ICE in walk_coarray, at fortran/trans-array.c:6684

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77940 Bug ID: 77940 Summary: ICE in walk_coarray, at fortran/trans-array.c:6684 Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug fortran/77941] ICE in expand_expr_addr_expr_1, at expr.c:7805

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77941 --- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz --- No ICE with "intent(in)" instead : $ cat z2.f90 program p print *, f(2_8**32+1) contains function f(n) integer(8), intent(in) :: n

[Bug fortran/77941] New: ICE in expand_expr_addr_expr_1, at expr.c:7805

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77941 Bug ID: 77941 Summary: ICE in expand_expr_addr_expr_1, at expr.c:7805 Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug fortran/77942] New: ICE: Floating point exception, in gfc_simplify_cshift, at fortran/simplify.c:1845

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77942 Bug ID: 77942 Summary: ICE: Floating point exception, in gfc_simplify_cshift, at fortran/simplify.c:1845 Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/77937] [7 Regression] ICE: in replace_one_candidate, at gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c:3370

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937 --- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- Well, -march=amdfam10 is of course x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.

[Bug libstdc++/77944] New: FAIL: 20_util/variant/compile.cc (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77944 Bug ID: 77944 Summary: FAIL: 20_util/variant/compile.cc (test for excess errors) Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/77943] Optimization incorrectly commons noexcept calls with non-noexcept calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77943 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug target/77934] pattern for mtvsrdd needs to use b constraint not r

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77934 --- Comment #1 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: acsawdey Date: Wed Oct 12 02:12:06 2016 New Revision: 241017 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241017=gcc=rev Log: 2016-10-12 Aaron Sawdey PR

[Bug c++/77943] Optimization incorrectly commons noexcept calls with non-noexcept calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77943 --- Comment #3 from Mathias Stearn --- > Not being a C++ expect, but following spec: > http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/noexcept_spec > > "If a search for a matching exception handler leaves a function marked > noexcept or

[Bug tree-optimization/77937] [7 Regression] ICE: in replace_one_candidate, at gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c:3370

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937 --- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- Unfortunately it doesn't work: dirac.i:3:6: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault void fn1(char *p1, int p2) { ^~~ 0xb6d367 crash_signal ../../gcc/gcc/toplev.c:337 0x7ff87981f10f

[Bug other/77421] Bugs found in GCC with the help of PVS-Studio

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421 Bug 77421 depends on bug 77424, which changed state. Bug 77424 Summary: Identical statements in if-else branches https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77424 What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/77424] Identical statements in if-else branches

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77424 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/77942] [6/7 Regression] ICE: Floating point exception, in gfc_simplify_cshift, at fortran/simplify.c:1845

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77942 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/77424] Identical statements in if-else branches

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77424 --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Tue Oct 11 21:41:51 2016 New Revision: 241009 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241009=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/77424 * tree-ssa-threadupdate.c

[Bug fortran/77942] [6/7 Regression] ICE: Floating point exception, in gfc_simplify_cshift, at fortran/simplify.c:1845

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77942 --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Tue Oct 11 21:46:12 2016 New Revision: 241011 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241011=gcc=rev Log: 2016-10-11 Steven G. Kargl PR

[Bug fortran/77903] gfortran 6.1.0/7.0.0 accept invalid code with conflicting module/submodule interfaces

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77903 --- Comment #4 from Damian Rouson --- Check the date on your draft. The latest draft is dated 31 August 2016. C1556 appears on page 330. Does the following link work for you? http://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/16/16-007.pdf I'm working on

[Bug tree-optimization/77937] [7 Regression] ICE: in replace_one_candidate, at gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c:3370

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77937 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --- Comment #5 from

[Bug bootstrap/77917] undefined reference to '__aeabi_unwind_cpp_pr0' during ARM bootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77917 PeteVine changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug c++/77943] Optimization incorrectly commons noexcept calls with non-noexcept calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77943 --- Comment #1 from Mathias Stearn --- Created attachment 39787 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39787=edit Reproducer

[Bug tree-optimization/77929] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: non-trivial conversion at assignment)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77929 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/77929] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: non-trivial conversion at assignment)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77929 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug target/77930] Compile time hog w/ -O2 -g -funroll-loops -ftree-loop-if-convert-stores on 32-bit targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77930 --- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > Wonder if it is var-tracking -- does -fno-var-tracking "fix" it? Yes, it does.

[Bug tree-optimization/77898] incorrect VR_ANTI_RANGE after evrp and before vrp1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77898 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/77930] Compile time hog w/ -O2 -g -funroll-loops -ftree-loop-if-convert-stores on 32-bit targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77930 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- Wonder if it is var-tracking -- does -fno-var-tracking "fix" it?

[Bug middle-end/77558] [6/7 regression] c-c++-common/va-arg-va-list-type.c fails for arm/aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77558 --- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries --- Author: vries Date: Tue Oct 11 08:16:11 2016 New Revision: 240968 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240968=gcc=rev Log: Remove RECORD_TYPE special-casing in std_canonical_va_list_type 2016-10-11 Tom de

[Bug middle-end/77558] [6/7 regression] c-c++-common/va-arg-va-list-type.c fails for arm/aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77558 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/77898] incorrect VR_ANTI_RANGE after evrp and before vrp1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77898 --- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #8) > I agree that in many cases there isn't enough information to tell that a > range is final and can't be further improved. But there certainly are such > cases (the

[Bug middle-end/77920] [7 Regression] 186.crafty doesn't compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77920 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug rtl-optimization/77919] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE converting DC to V2DF mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77919 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-*-* Target Milestone|---

[Bug middle-end/77558] [6/7 regression] c-c++-common/va-arg-va-list-type.c fails for arm/aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77558 --- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries --- Author: vries Date: Tue Oct 11 08:21:25 2016 New Revision: 240970 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240970=gcc=rev Log: backport "Remove RECORD_TYPE special-casing in std_canonical_va_list_type"

[Bug target/77904] [ARM Cortex-M0] Frame pointer thrashes registers if assembly statements with "sp" clobber are used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77904 Thomas Preud'homme changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|2016-10-10

[Bug debug/77931] New: PASS->FAIL: gdb.cp/namespace.exp: print ina

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77931 Bug ID: 77931 Summary: PASS->FAIL: gdb.cp/namespace.exp: print ina Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: debug