[Bug sanitizer/78028] ASAN doesn't find memory leak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78028 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- I can't reproduce it with g++ 5.3.1 nor current trunk either.

[Bug lto/78034] New: undefined reference during LTO linking.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78034 Bug ID: 78034 Summary: undefined reference during LTO linking. Product: gcc Version: 6.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: lto

[Bug lto/78034] undefined reference during LTO linking.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78034 Pawel Sikora changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/78034] undefined reference during LTO linking.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78034 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target|i686-gnu-linux | --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---

[Bug tree-optimization/78024] [7 regression] test cases gfortran.dg/goacc/routine-4.f90 and also routine-5.f90 fail starting with r241296

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78024 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||openacc Status|NEW

[Bug lto/78034] undefined reference during LTO linking.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78034 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Also why are you using inline-asm here? Why can't you use the SSE intrinsics?

[Bug lto/78034] undefined reference during LTO linking.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78034 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- This is the original code: https://www.cryptopp.com/docs/ref/integer_8cpp_source.html This code is so broken it is no longer funny.

[Bug tree-optimization/61502] == comparison on "one-past" pointer gives wrong result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61502 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/40225] Mishandled throw/catch with throw in constructor and rethrow in set_terminate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40225 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Works with GCC 5.4.0 on aarch64-linux-gnu. I did not check any other version.

[Bug tree-optimization/78024] [7 regression] test cases gfortran.dg/goacc/routine-4.f90 and also routine-5.f90 fail starting with r241296

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78024 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.0 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener

[Bug libgcc/78017] weak reference usage in gthr-posix.h (__gthread*) is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78017 --- Comment #4 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > There are other reasons why using static libraries does not make sense for > libpthread. i can't immediately think of any, can you give a hint?

[Bug middle-end/78016] REG_NOTE order is not kept during insn copy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78016 --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou --- > I am wondering whether it's OK to use copy_insn_1 here? that is to replace > the whole for loop into something simply as "REG_NOTES (new_insn) = > copy_insn_1 (REG_NOTES (old_insn);" as I think copy_insn_1

[Bug fortran/78025] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE in simd_clone_adjust, at omp-simd-clone.c:1126

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78025 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.5

[Bug fortran/78026] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE in gfc_resolve_omp_declare_simd, at fortran/openmp.c:5190

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78026 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.5

[Bug tree-optimization/77989] [7 Regression] -O3 causes verify_gimple fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77989 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/77988] [7 Regression] ICE on valid code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_gimple failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77988 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com --- Comment #

[Bug fortran/78021] [5/6/7 Regression] Wrong result with optimization on character constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78021 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.5 Summary|Wrong result wit

[Bug fortran/78033] Internal Compiler Error in enforce_single_undo_checkpoint

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78033 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code Status|UN

[Bug tree-optimization/78035] New: Inconsistency between address comparison and alias analysis

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78035 Bug ID: 78035 Summary: Inconsistency between address comparison and alias analysis Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization,

[Bug tree-optimization/78035] Inconsistency between address comparison and alias analysis

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78035 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- To ignore the memory disambiguation side and "fix" the address comparison side only we could introduce a "points-to-interposable" flag and bail out whenever we see that comparing two pointers using points-to

[Bug tree-optimization/78035] Inconsistency between address comparison and alias analysis

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78035 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- It would be nice to split out a predicate for this from symtab_node::equal_address_to that I can invoke on a single symtab node (or is there already one? The code suggests that ->analyzed && decl_binds_to_c

[Bug c++/59885] compiler issues incorrect "ambiguous base class" error message

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59885 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug fortran/71759] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE in enforce_single_undo_checkpoint, at fortran/symbol.c:3478

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71759 --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Related to pr78033.

[Bug fortran/78033] Internal Compiler Error in enforce_single_undo_checkpoint

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78033 --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Related to/duplicate of pr71759. I don't see the ICE with compilers configured with --enable-checking=release.

[Bug tree-optimization/78035] Inconsistency between address comparison and alias analysis

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78035 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug tree-optimization/78035] Inconsistency between address comparison and alias analysis

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78035 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/77990] unique_ptr::unique_ptr(T*) imposes CopyConstructible on the deleter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77990 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Wed Oct 19 09:34:57 2016 New Revision: 241330 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241330&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR77990 refactor unique_ptr to encapsulate tuple PR libstdc++/77

[Bug tree-optimization/78024] [7 regression] test cases gfortran.dg/goacc/routine-4.f90 and also routine-5.f90 fail starting with r241296

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78024 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #5 from Thomas Schwi

[Bug c/78036] New: -MM suppresses error detection

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78036 Bug ID: 78036 Summary: -MM suppresses error detection Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assi

[Bug c/78036] -MM suppresses error detection

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78036 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/78024] [7 regression] test cases gfortran.dg/goacc/routine-4.f90 and also routine-5.f90 fail starting with r241296

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78024 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78024 > > Thomas Schwinge changed: > >What|Removed |A

[Bug rtl-optimization/78029] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2285

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78029 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug libstdc++/77990] unique_ptr::unique_ptr(T*) imposes CopyConstructible on the deleter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77990 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Wed Oct 19 10:15:27 2016 New Revision: 241333 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241333&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR77990 fix unique_ptr for non-copyable deleters PR libstdc++/77

[Bug tree-optimization/78024] [7 regression] test cases gfortran.dg/goacc/routine-4.f90 and also routine-5.f90 fail starting with r241296

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78024 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/77990] unique_ptr::unique_ptr(T*) imposes CopyConstructible on the deleter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77990 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Wed Oct 19 10:36:24 2016 New Revision: 241337 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241337&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR77990 fix unique_ptr for non-copyable deleters PR libstdc++/77

[Bug libstdc++/77990] unique_ptr::unique_ptr(T*) imposes CopyConstructible on the deleter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77990 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/77458] nvptx offloading ICEs after "Implement C _FloatN, _FloatNx types"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77458 --- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge --- Author: tschwinge Date: Wed Oct 19 10:48:46 2016 New Revision: 241338 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241338&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [PR lto/77458] Avoid ICE in offloading with differing _FloatN, _Floa

[Bug lto/77458] nvptx offloading ICEs after "Implement C _FloatN, _FloatNx types"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77458 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/78005] [7 Regression] 172.mgrid and 450.soplex miscompare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78005 --- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: amker Date: Wed Oct 19 11:02:23 2016 New Revision: 241339 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241339&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/78005 * tree-vect-loop-mani

[Bug c/64279] Warning missing for "(cond) ? A : A" / if(cond) expr1; else expr1; // same expression in if and else branch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64279 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek --- I just posted , but given the macro issue, I'm not really sanguine.

[Bug lto/78034] undefined reference during LTO linking.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78034 --- Comment #5 from Pawel Sikora --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > Also why are you using inline-asm here? Why can't you use the SSE > intrinsics? it's a 3rd-party crypto library which works for me with gcc-4.9. now with gcc-6.2

[Bug c/78037] New: Incorrect code generated at optimization level -O2 for tzcnt and binary and

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78037 Bug ID: 78037 Summary: Incorrect code generated at optimization level -O2 for tzcnt and binary and Product: gcc Version: 6.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: nor

[Bug c/78037] Incorrect code generated at optimization level -O2 for tzcnt and binary and

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78037 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Le Scouarnec --- Created attachment 39836 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39836&action=edit C file

[Bug c/78037] Incorrect code generated at optimization level -O2 for tzcnt and binary and

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78037 --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Le Scouarnec --- Created attachment 39837 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39837&action=edit i file

[Bug c/78037] Incorrect code generated at optimization level -O2 for tzcnt and binary and

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78037 --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Le Scouarnec --- Created attachment 39838 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39838&action=edit Correct Assembly at optimization level O1

[Bug c/78037] Incorrect code generated at optimization level -O2 for tzcnt and binary and

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78037 --- Comment #4 from Nicolas Le Scouarnec --- Created attachment 39839 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39839&action=edit Incorrect assembly at optimization level O2

[Bug target/78038] New: internal compiler error: in get_sub_rtx, at ree.c:655

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78038 Bug ID: 78038 Summary: internal compiler error: in get_sub_rtx, at ree.c:655 Product: gcc Version: 6.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug tree-optimization/61502] == comparison on "one-past" pointer gives wrong result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61502 --- Comment #22 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #21) > Invalid as mentioned a few times already but never actually closed until now. I posted a strictly conforming program that with GCC does not behave as require

[Bug target/78037] Incorrect code generated at optimization level -O2 for tzcnt and binary and

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78037 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/78037] Incorrect code generated at optimization level -O2 for tzcnt and binary and

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78037 --- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > That is because _tzcnt_u64 is expanded as __builtin_ctzll, which is > explicitly UB with zero argument. So, either we need to expand it like > x ? __builtin_ctzll

[Bug tree-optimization/78035] Inconsistency between address comparison and alias analysis

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78035 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comm

[Bug target/78038] [5/6/7 Regression] internal compiler error: in get_sub_rtx, at ree.c:655

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78038 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords|

[Bug c++/78039] New: [6/7 Regression] fails to compile glibc tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78039 Bug ID: 78039 Summary: [6/7 Regression] fails to compile glibc tests Product: gcc Version: 6.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c+

[Bug c++/78039] [6/7 Regression] fails to compile glibc tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78039 --- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose --- gcc-6-branch 20161010 (r240906) built the glibc tests ok.

[Bug middle-end/78016] REG_NOTE order is not kept during insn copy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78016 --- Comment #4 from Jiong Wang --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #3) > > I am wondering whether it's OK to use copy_insn_1 here? that is to replace > > the whole for loop into something simply as "REG_NOTES (new_insn) = > > copy_insn_1

[Bug c++/78039] [6/7 Regression] fails to compile glibc tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78039 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug target/78037] Incorrect code generated at optimization level -O2 for tzcnt and binary and

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78037 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug sanitizer/77982] deadlock in asan thread initialization/interception.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77982 --- Comment #1 from Pawel Sikora --- Created attachment 39842 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39842&action=edit reduced testcase. % gdb ./m GNU gdb (GDB) Fedora 7.11.1-86.fc24 (gdb) r Starting program: /home/pawels/src/bug

[Bug target/78037] Incorrect code generated at optimization level -O2 for tzcnt and binary and

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78037 --- Comment #8 from Nicolas Le Scouarnec --- The same problem may be present in lzcnt which is also expanded as __builtin_clz which is also undefined if 0. http://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/LZCNT.html

[Bug target/78038] [5/6/7 Regression] internal compiler error: in get_sub_rtx, at ree.c:655

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78038 --- Comment #2 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Hmm, so the zero_extend candidate is: (insn 9 10 11 2 (set (reg/f:DI 1 x1 [orig:74 g.1_2 ] [74]) (zero_extend:DI (reg/v:SI 28 x28 [ g ]))) "ree.c":16 84 {*zero_extendsidi2_aarch64} (

[Bug tree-optimization/78035] Inconsistency between address comparison and alias analysis

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78035 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78035 > > Alexander Monakov changed: > >What|Removed |

[Bug libfortran/74755] libgfortran: build breaks if localtime_r prototype is present, but definition is not

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74755 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |SUSPENDED CC|

[Bug target/78038] [5/6/7 Regression] internal compiler error: in get_sub_rtx, at ree.c:655

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78038 --- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to ktkachov from comment #2) > Hmm, so the zero_extend candidate is: > (insn 9 10 11 2 (set (reg/f:DI 1 x1 [orig:74 g.1_2 ] [74]) > (zero_extend:DI (reg/v:SI 28 x28 [ g ]))) "re

[Bug c++/78039] [6/7 Regression] fails to compile glibc tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78039 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Agreed.

[Bug c++/78039] [6/7 Regression] fails to compile glibc tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78039 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Target Milestone|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/78038] [5/6/7 Regression] internal compiler error: in get_sub_rtx, at ree.c:655

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78038 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Component

[Bug rtl-optimization/78038] [5/6/7 Regression] internal compiler error: in get_sub_rtx, at ree.c:655

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78038 --- Comment #5 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Steffen Schmidt from comment #0) > Created attachment 39840 [details] > Test source file > > Dear GCC maintainers, > > we found that gcc / g++ crashes with internal compiler error

[Bug tree-optimization/77916] [6/7 Regression] ICE in verify_gimple_in_cfg: invalid (pointer) operands to plus/minus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77916 --- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Wed Oct 19 13:35:14 2016 New Revision: 241342 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241342&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2016-10-19 Bill Schmidt PR tree-optimization/77916 P

[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 #17 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Wed Oct 19 13:35:14 2016 New Revision: 241342 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241342&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2016-10-19 Bill Schmidt PR tree-optimization/77916

[Bug c++/78039] [6/7 Regression] fails to compile glibc tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78039 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|rejects-valid | CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/61502] == comparison on "one-past" pointer gives wrong result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61502 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|SUSPENDED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/78040] New: Missed mangled names of class methods in the translation unit dump

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78040 Bug ID: 78040 Summary: Missed mangled names of class methods in the translation unit dump Product: gcc Version: 6.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/49330] Integer arithmetic on addresses optimised with pointer arithmetic rules

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||alias Last reconfirmed|2011-06-09 09:

[Bug sanitizer/78028] ASAN doesn't find memory leak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78028 --- Comment #3 from David Barto --- If it is restricted to 5.2, then we can close this as "won't fix"

[Bug c++/78039] [6/7 Regression] fails to compile glibc tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78039 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- Sorry, that was the wrong link. The correct link to the email thread where the approval was requested is here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg01094.html I don't see Jason's approval in the arch

[Bug tree-optimization/65752] Too strong optimizations int -> pointer casts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||61502, 49330 --- Comment #49 from Richa

[Bug sanitizer/78028] ASAN doesn't find memory leak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78028 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- That wouldn't be WONTFIX, but FIXED, the support of GCC release branches mean that the bug is just fixed on the release branch and later on will make it into some newer minor release, we can't fix released ve

[Bug c++/78039] [6/7 Regression] fails to compile glibc tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78039 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5) > Sorry, that was the wrong link. The correct link to the email thread where > the approval was requested is here: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg0

[Bug target/77897] Compile error with KNL & -O3 for GTC code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77897 --- Comment #4 from Bill Long --- Confirmation from the customer system: GNU assembler (GNU Binutils; SUSE Linux Enterprise 12) 2.25.0 Copyright (C) 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This program is free software; you may redistribute it under

[Bug bootstrap/77993] [7 regression] bootstrap failure on PowerPC/Linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77993 --- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool --- Hi Eric, What bootstrap stage is failing here?

[Bug tree-optimization/65752] Too strong optimizations int -> pointer casts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65752 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #50 f

[Bug target/77991] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE on x32 in plus_constant, at explow.c:87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77991 --- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Wed Oct 19 14:57:35 2016 New Revision: 241345 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241345&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/77991 * config/i386/i386.c (legitimize_t

[Bug target/77991] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE on x32 in plus_constant, at explow.c:87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77991 --- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Wed Oct 19 15:00:06 2016 New Revision: 241346 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241346&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/77991 * config/i386/i386.c (legitimize_t

[Bug target/77991] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE on x32 in plus_constant, at explow.c:87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77991 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug bootstrap/77993] [7 regression] bootstrap failure on PowerPC/Linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77993 --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou --- > What bootstrap stage is failing here? It's a simple build failure, just try to compile the preprocessed testcase.

[Bug bootstrap/77993] [7 regression] bootstrap failure on PowerPC/Linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77993 --- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool --- Also, what configure comment, and you seem to have CFLAGS set during build?

[Bug bootstrap/77993] [7 regression] bootstrap failure on PowerPC/Linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77993 --- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool --- Build, with what flags?

[Bug c++/70909] Libiberty Demangler segfaults (4)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909 Pedro Alves changed: What|Removed |Added CC||palves at redhat dot com --- Comment #3 fr

[Bug bootstrap/77993] [7 regression] bootstrap failure on PowerPC/Linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77993 --- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou --- > Also, what configure comment, and you seem to have CFLAGS set during > build? Configure with: /work/botcazou/gcc-head/src/configure --build=powerpc-linux-gnu --prefix=/work/botcazou/gcc-head/install_ppc --

[Bug c++/61491] An explicit specialization of a member enumeration of a class template is rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61491 --- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini --- Resolving this requires some additional work beyond what I did back in 2015. See: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-07/msg00781.html

[Bug tree-optimization/72785] [7 Regression] kernel build error since r236831

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72785 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #3 fr

[Bug tree-optimization/72785] [7 Regression] kernel build error since r236831

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72785 --- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #3) > If someone has a .i file for this issue, it'd be awful handy. Well, see comment0: markus@x4 linux % cat timekeeping.i int a, b; extern int ilog2_NaN(

[Bug tree-optimization/72785] [7 Regression] kernel build error since r236831

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72785 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-October/461597.html

[Bug target/56676] unnecesary splitted load when using avx2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56676 Vedran Miletic changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rivanvx at gmail dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug rtl-optimization/78029] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2285

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78029 --- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool --- Kyrill: Anything inconsistent in the CFI will trigger the assert there, it is most probably not the same bug.

[Bug rtl-optimization/78041] New: Wrong code on ARMv7 with -mthumb -mfpu=neon-fp16 -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78041 Bug ID: 78041 Summary: Wrong code on ARMv7 with -mthumb -mfpu=neon-fp16 -O0 Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug c++/78042] New: g++ does not select the corresponding overloads of abs() for long and long long

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78042 Bug ID: 78042 Summary: g++ does not select the corresponding overloads of abs() for long and long long Product: gcc Version: 6.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug rtl-optimization/78041] Wrong code on ARMv7 with -mthumb -mfpu=neon-fp16 -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78041 --- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger --- some background about this bug can be found here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg01561.html

[Bug tree-optimization/71915] A missed opportunity for SLSR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71915 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/78041] Wrong code on ARMv7 with -mthumb -mfpu=neon-fp16 -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78041 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wdijkstr at arm dot com --- Comment #2 from Wilc

  1   2   >