[Bug driver/81523] -static -pie behaves differently depending on if --enable-default-pie is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81523 --- Comment #3 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: hjl Date: Tue Aug 8 22:06:21 2017 New Revision: 250974 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250974=gcc=rev Log: PR driver/81523: Make -static override -pie -static and -pie together

[Bug driver/81498] Support creating static PIE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81498 Bug 81498 depends on bug 81523, which changed state. Bug 81523 Summary: -static -pie behaves differently depending on if --enable-default-pie is used https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81523 What|Removed

[Bug driver/80044] Specifying both -static and -pie insanity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80044 Bug 80044 depends on bug 81523, which changed state. Bug 81523 Summary: -static -pie behaves differently depending on if --enable-default-pie is used https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81523 What|Removed

[Bug rtl-optimization/81747] [8 Regression] ICE in operator[], at vec.h:749

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81747 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code

[Bug ipa/81465] [8 Regression] ICE in estimate_edge_growth at gcc/ipa-inline.h:85 on s390x target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81465 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/81763] Issues with BMI on 32bit x86 apps on GCC 7.1+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763 --- Comment #6 from Mike Lothian --- I tried the test case with gcc -O2 -march=native test.c -o test and gcc -O2 -march=native -mno-bmi test.c -o test Both executables seem to run with no output I've only seen the issue in radeonsi in Mesa

[Bug target/81766] [8 Regression] ICE in maybe_add_or_update_dep_1, at sched-deps.c:924 caused by r250815

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug driver/81523] -static -pie behaves differently depending on if --enable-default-pie is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81523 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/81170] powerpc*-linux --enable-default-pie chooses incorrect startup files

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81170 Bug 81170 depends on bug 81523, which changed state. Bug 81523 Summary: -static -pie behaves differently depending on if --enable-default-pie is used https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81523 What|Removed

[Bug c++/81607] [6/7 Regression] Conditional operator: "type mismatch in shift expression" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81607 --- Comment #12 from Dmitry Babokin --- The fix helped all fails that I see (with all 7 different symptoms). Thanks!

[Bug rtl-optimization/81747] [8 Regression] ICE in operator[], at vec.h:749

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81747 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.0

[Bug tree-optimization/81741] Misoptimisation : replacing a constant field read access by a function call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81741 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/81765] New: Internal compiler error: Segmentation fault with -O2 -fnon-call-exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81765 Bug ID: 81765 Summary: Internal compiler error: Segmentation fault with -O2 -fnon-call-exceptions Product: gcc Version: 6.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug target/81766] [7/8 Regression] ICE in maybe_add_or_update_dep_1, at sched-deps.c:924 caused by r250815

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 CC|

[Bug libstdc++/81749] std::align: runtime error: negation of 8 cannot be represented in type 'size_t'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81749 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug driver/81519] Enhancement: Add --help=target-distcc or similar to dump clean, optimal CFLAGS without using -march=native

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81519 --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška --- Ok, so I've briefly investigated source code and providing such information is definitely not a simple task :/ I would recommend to fix PR39851 and then one will just compare output of following 2

[Bug c++/81607] [6/7 Regression] Conditional operator: "type mismatch in shift expression" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81607 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] |[6/7 Regression]

[Bug c++/81607] [6/7/8 Regression] Conditional operator: "type mismatch in shift expression" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81607 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.5 Summary|Conditional

[Bug tree-optimization/81740] [5/6/7/8 Regression] wrong code at -O3 in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81740 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 CC|

[Bug target/81766] New: [7/8 Regression] ICE in maybe_add_or_update_dep_1, at sched-deps.c:924 caused by r250815

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766 Bug ID: 81766 Summary: [7/8 Regression] ICE in maybe_add_or_update_dep_1, at sched-deps.c:924 caused by r250815 Product: gcc Version: 7.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/81723] [7/8 Regression] fortran build doesn't terminate on 64bit targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81723 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-*-* Priority|P3

[Bug c++/81722] [7/8 Regression] memory hog building c++ on i686-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81722 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.2

[Bug other/81752] Sanity-check OMP clause arguments, command-line flags, and environment variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81752 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Target|nvptx | Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/81607] Conditional operator: "type mismatch in shift expression" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81607 --- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Tue Aug 8 08:55:43 2017 New Revision: 250948 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250948=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/81607 * cp-gimplify.c (cp_fold): If folding exposed a

[Bug target/81766] [7/8 Regression] ICE in maybe_add_or_update_dep_1, at sched-deps.c:924 caused by r250815

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- If contemplating reversion, perhaps: --- gcc/function.c.jj 2017-08-07 18:50:09.0 +0200 +++ gcc/function.c 2017-08-08 11:11:25.506239318 +0200 @@ -6073,17 +6073,16 @@

[Bug c++/81765] Internal compiler error: Segmentation fault with -O2 -fnon-call-exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81765 --- Comment #1 from Ubikovich --- How to avoid this bug?

[Bug testsuite/81738] [8 Regression] gcc.dg/vect/vect-alias-check-6.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81738 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last

[Bug target/81739] Replace calls to memcmp with more efficient code if possible

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81739 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug middle-end/81719] Range-based for loop on short fixed size array generates long unrolled loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81719 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/81758] [OOP] Broken vtab

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81758 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||81748 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig

[Bug tree-optimization/81723] [7/8 Regression] fortran build doesn't terminate on 64bit targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81723 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- Ok, so the issue is that SLP tree size limiting doesn't work effectively here with the build-from-scalars fallback as the cost of doing this is not accounted for. The tree size itself doesn't grow too much

[Bug c++/81668] LTO ODR warnings are not helpful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81668 --- Comment #7 from sgunderson at bigfoot dot com --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #6) >> fts0pars.y:62:0: note: a field with different name is defined in another >> translation unit > Did you cut the above? It looks like a note

[Bug target/81759] Improve data tracking for _pext_u64 and __builtin_ffsll

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81759 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/81772] Compile-time snprintf optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81772 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/81747] [8 Regression] ICE in operator[], at vec.h:749

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81747 --- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool --- Yeah, but the condition in which BRANCH_EDGE is called starts with if (EDGE_COUNT (previous_bb_in_path->succs) == 2 so I'm confused now.

[Bug target/81389] _mm_cmpestri segfault on -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81389 rockeet changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug target/81763] Issues with BMI on 32bit x86 apps on GCC 7.1+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Mike Lothian from comment #6) > I tried the test case with > > gcc -O2 -march=native test.c -o test > > and > > gcc -O2 -march=native -mno-bmi test.c -o test > > Both executables seem to run with

[Bug tree-optimization/81776] New: missing sprintf optimization due to pointer escape analysis

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81776 Bug ID: 81776 Summary: missing sprintf optimization due to pointer escape analysis Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/81747] [8 Regression] ICE in operator[], at vec.h:749

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81747 --- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool --- Yeah, I found out it is _not_ the one the backtrace (or GDB) points at. I have a patch: === diff --git a/gcc/cse.c b/gcc/cse.c index 6a968d1..34650d2 100644 --- a/gcc/cse.c +++ b/gcc/cse.c @@ -6642,6

[Bug rtl-optimization/81747] [8 Regression] ICE in operator[], at vec.h:749

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81747 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amodra at gmail dot com --- Comment #3

[Bug rtl-optimization/81747] [8 Regression] ICE in operator[], at vec.h:749

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81747 --- Comment #5 from Alan Modra --- Segher, the confusion is due to looking at the wrong BRANCH_EDGE occurrence in cse.c

[Bug tree-optimization/81696] [5/6/7/8 Regression] ICF ICE on non-local goto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81696 --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Tue Aug 8 11:59:23 2017 New Revision: 250951 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250951=gcc=rev Log: ICF: properly handle LABEL_DECLs (PR tree-opt/81696). 2017-08-08 Martin Liska

[Bug target/81766] [7/8 Regression] ICE in maybe_add_or_update_dep_1, at sched-deps.c:924 caused by r250815

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- So, it seems the CODE_LABEL in the first bb (successor of entry bb) is added by ix86_init_large_pic_reg called by called by ix86_init_pic_reg from: 5135 /* Perform target specific PIC register

[Bug target/81766] [7/8 Regression] ICE in maybe_add_or_update_dep_1, at sched-deps.c:924 caused by r250815

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766 --- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > This stuff is weird anyway, do we really need it at the beginning of the > function, even if we say shrink-wrap (i.e. shouldn't it be done in the > prologue)?

[Bug target/81766] [7/8 Regression] ICE in maybe_add_or_update_dep_1, at sched-deps.c:924 caused by r250815

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > find_bb_boundaries doesn't seem to expect existing NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK, so > calling it on existing blocks exposes un-optimalities in case labels are > valid

[Bug middle-end/81719] Range-based for loop on short fixed size array generates long unrolled loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81719 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug middle-end/81719] Range-based for loop on short fixed size array generates long unrolled loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81719 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Tue Aug 8 12:51:20 2017 New Revision: 250954 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250954=gcc=rev Log: 2017-08-08 Richard Biener PR middle-end/81719

[Bug tree-optimization/81354] [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault in SSA Strength Reduction using -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354 --- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Tue Aug 8 12:52:22 2017 New Revision: 250955 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250955=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-08-08 Bill Schmidt PR

[Bug target/81753] Building of cross-compiler for powerpc-darwin7 is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81753 --- Comment #5 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org --- Yes please do. The only wrinkle is as segher pointed out to me yesterday, make sure this only applies to powerpc darwin in config.gcc.

[Bug tree-optimization/81723] [7 Regression] fortran build doesn't terminate on 64bit targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81723 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||8.0 Summary|[7/8

[Bug tree-optimization/81723] [7 Regression] fortran build doesn't terminate on 64bit targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81723 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Tue Aug 8 12:49:39 2017 New Revision: 250953 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250953=gcc=rev Log: 2017-08-08 Richard Biener PR

[Bug libgomp/81768] New: error: control flow in the middle of basic block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81768 Bug ID: 81768 Summary: error: control flow in the middle of basic block Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/81767] Unused variable warning with structured binding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81767 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Already fixed on trunk with r248483

[Bug target/81766] [7/8 Regression] ICE in maybe_add_or_update_dep_1, at sched-deps.c:924 caused by r250815

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Sadly: --- gcc/config/i386/i386.c.jj 2017-08-07 18:50:10.0 +0200 +++ gcc/config/i386/i386.c 2017-08-08 14:33:06.462836529 +0200 @@ -8846,6 +8846,10 @@ ix86_init_large_pic_reg (unsigned int tm

[Bug target/81769] New: Unnecessary stack realign with -mavx

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81769 Bug ID: 81769 Summary: Unnecessary stack realign with -mavx Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug tree-optimization/81354] [5/6 Regression] Segmentation fault in SSA Strength Reduction using -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81354 --- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt --- Fixed on trunk so far, and verified that a modified backport fixes the limited range on 5.4 where the provided test case fails. Backports to follow in about a week after burn-in.

[Bug other/39851] gcc -Q --help=target does not list extensions selected by -march=

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39851 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/81313] Bad stack realignment code with -mno-accumulate-outgoing-args

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81313 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/81313] Bad stack realignment code with -mno-accumulate-outgoing-args

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81313 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug tree-optimization/81744] [8 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed, at tree-ssa.c:1186

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81744 --- Comment #7 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: amker Date: Tue Aug 8 11:32:05 2017 New Revision: 250950 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250950=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/81744 * tree-predcom.c

[Bug fortran/81251] check of logical pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81251 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug libgcc/81775] GCC fails to compile: md-unwind-support.h:65 dereferencing pointer to incomplete type ‘struct ucontext’

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81775 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/81712] gcc does not compile when using glib 2.26 (everything works fine with 2.25)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81712 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||guido at trentalancia dot com ---

[Bug target/81763] Issues with BMI on 32bit x86 apps on GCC 7.1+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81763 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- This might be PR 53399.

[Bug fortran/81773] New: [Coarray] Get with vector index on lhs leads to incorrect caf_get_by_ref() call.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81773 Bug ID: 81773 Summary: [Coarray] Get with vector index on lhs leads to incorrect caf_get_by_ref() call. Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug target/81708] The x86 stack canary location should be customizable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81708 --- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Tue Aug 8 16:48:46 2017 New Revision: 250965 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250965=gcc=rev Log: PR target/81708 * config/i386/i386.opt

[Bug target/81708] The x86 stack canary location should be customizable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81708 --- Comment #7 from Andy Lutomirski --- Hmm. This is a big improvement, but it's still going to be awkward to use -- if we want to use a normal Linux percpu variable, we're stuck putting it in a fixed location that's known at compile time as

[Bug c/81774] Volatile - order of reads in generated code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81774 --- Comment #3 from Piotr --- And what about if volatile variable changes during the multiplications. Mybe not in this example but if y was declared global - it can be interrupted between multiplications. volatile int y; int x3(int x) {

[Bug target/81708] The x86 stack canary location should be customizable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81708 --- Comment #9 from H. Peter Anvin --- In some applications it might even be appropriate to use the RDPID instruction and store the canary in the IA32_TSC_AUX MSR.

[Bug libstdc++/17215] [3.4 only] __basic_file::close ignores errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17215 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/81767] New: Unused variable warning with structured binding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81767 Bug ID: 81767 Summary: Unused variable warning with structured binding Product: gcc Version: 7.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/81708] The x86 stack canary location should be customizable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81708 --- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3) > Created attachment 41949 [details] > Patch that introduces mstack-protector-guard-offset= and > mstack-protector-guard-reg= e.g.: -mstack-protector-guard-reg=%fs

[Bug target/81766] [7/8 Regression] ICE in maybe_add_or_update_dep_1, at sched-deps.c:924 caused by r250815

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- find_bb_boundaries doesn't seem to expect existing NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK, so calling it on existing blocks exposes un-optimalities in case labels are valid after NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK.

[Bug target/81736] Unnecessary save and restore frame pointer with -fno-omit-frame-pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81736 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/81643] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/long_branch_1.c scan-assembler Ltb

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81643 amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/81708] The x86 stack canary location should be customizable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81708 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/81765] Internal compiler error: Segmentation fault with -O2 -fnon-call-exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81765 --- Comment #2 from Ubikovich --- (In reply to Ubikovich from comment #1) > How to avoid this bug? Compiling this code with optimization -O1 helps to avoid the problem.

[Bug target/81708] The x86 stack canary location should be customizable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81708 --- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak --- Created attachment 41949 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41949=edit Patch that introduces mstack-protector-guard-offset= and mstack-protector-guard-reg= Prototype patch that introduces

[Bug target/81766] [7/8 Regression] ICE in maybe_add_or_update_dep_1, at sched-deps.c:924 caused by r250815

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766 --- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 8 Aug 2017, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766 > > --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- > If contemplating reversion, perhaps: > ---

[Bug c++/81765] Internal compiler error: Segmentation fault with -O2 -fnon-call-exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81765 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/81184] [8 regression] gcc.dg/pr21643.c and gcc.dg/tree-ssa/phi-opt-11.c fail starting with r249450

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81184 --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška --- Jakub?

[Bug target/81736] Unnecessary save and restore frame pointer with -fno-omit-frame-pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81736 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- Another weird code with -fno-omit-frame-pointer: [hjl@gnu-6 pr59501]$ cat k.i typedef int v8si __attribute__ ((vector_size (32))); void foo (v8si *idx, v8si *out_start, v8si *out_end, v8si *regions) {

[Bug fortran/81770] New: [5/6/7 Regression] Bogus warning: Pointer in pointer assignment might outlive the pointer target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81770 Bug ID: 81770 Summary: [5/6/7 Regression] Bogus warning: Pointer in pointer assignment might outlive the pointer target Product: gcc Version: 7.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libgomp/81768] error: control flow in the middle of basic block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81768 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||openmp CC|

[Bug target/81766] [8 Regression] ICE in maybe_add_or_update_dep_1, at sched-deps.c:924 caused by r250815

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 41950 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41950=edit gcc8-pr81766.patch Untested patch that fixes the ICE.

[Bug middle-end/19706] Recognize common Fortran usages of copysign.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19706 --- Comment #2 from Tamar Christina --- Author: tnfchris Date: Tue Aug 8 13:15:44 2017 New Revision: 250956 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250956=gcc=rev Log: 2017-08-08 Tamar Christina Andrew

[Bug middle-end/19706] Recognize common Fortran usages of copysign.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19706 --- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina --- Author: tnfchris Date: Tue Aug 8 13:17:41 2017 New Revision: 250957 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250957=gcc=rev Log: 2017-08-08 Tamar Christina PR

[Bug target/81766] [8 Regression] ICE in maybe_add_or_update_dep_1, at sched-deps.c:924 caused by r250815

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|7.2 |8.0 Summary|[7/8

[Bug libstdc++/81771] New: __basic_file::sys_open is not a reserved name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81771 Bug ID: 81771 Summary: __basic_file::sys_open is not a reserved name Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: rejects-valid Severity: normal

[Bug target/81766] [8 Regression] ICE in maybe_add_or_update_dep_1, at sched-deps.c:924 caused by r250815

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81766 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|7.2 |8.0 Summary|[7/8

[Bug libstdc++/81771] __basic_file::sys_open is not a reserved name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81771 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/19706] Recognize common Fortran usages of copysign.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19706 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ramana at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/71361] [7/8 Regression] Changes in ivopts caused perf regression on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71361 --- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > So shall we defer this PR to GCC 8 then (i.e. [8 Regression] and Target > Milestone: 8.0? Richard, are you ok with that? With ivopt rewriting, we now

[Bug c/81774] Volatile - order of reads in generated code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81774 Piotr changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pj at hugeone dot co.uk

[Bug c/81774] Volatile - order of reads in generated code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81774 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/81772] Compile-time snprintf optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81772 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug libgcc/81775] New: GCC fails to compile: md-unwind-support.h:65 dereferencing pointer to incomplete type ‘struct ucontext’

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81775 Bug ID: 81775 Summary: GCC fails to compile: md-unwind-support.h:65 dereferencing pointer to incomplete type ‘struct ucontext’ Product: gcc Version: 7.1.0

[Bug libgomp/81591] segmentation fault when using priorities of nested tasks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81591 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Sistek --- Created attachment 41953 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41953=edit an enhanced version of the example producing an error Hi Jakub, sorry for my late response, I was on vacation :-)

[Bug fortran/81748] extensible types non-conforming behaviour

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81748 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/71361] [7/8 Regression] Changes in ivopts caused perf regression on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71361 --- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Hmm, but it can't be backported to 7 branch.

  1   2   >