[Bug target/84209] New: [avr] Don't split SP in split2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84209 Bug ID: 84209 Summary: [avr] Don't split SP in split2 Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug target/84209] [avr] Don't split SP in split2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84209 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Target|

[Bug sanitizer/84210] New: __ubsan_handle_builtin_unreachable shoun't be const

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84210 Bug ID: 84210 Summary: __ubsan_handle_builtin_unreachable shoun't be const Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug lto/81004] [7/8 Regression] linking failed with -flto and static libboost_program_options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004 --- Comment #20 from Martin Liška --- It's really fixed on trunk since r257023.

[Bug c++/84171] [8 Regression] ICE with -Wsign-compare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84171 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug c++/82782] ICE: nested template alias and specialized template with auto template parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82782 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/84209] [avr] Don't split SP in split2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84209 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|gjl at gcc

[Bug target/68028] [6/7/8 regression] Compilation error "lto1: error: target attribute or pragma changes single precision floating point" with LTO on PowerPC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68028 --- Comment #11 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Richard, > If the backend doesn't support mixing of -msingle-float/-mno-single-float > within a compilation unit then this will only work if the user didn't mix TUs > with conflicting setting at

[Bug lto/81004] [7/8 Regression] linking failed with -flto and static libboost_program_options

for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. but not with $ ~/8-install-slow/bin/g++ --version g++ (GCC) 8.0.1 20180205 (experimental) Copyright (C) 2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source

[Bug tree-optimization/38785] [6/7/8 Regression] huge performance regression on EEMBC bitmnp01

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38785 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|NEW Last reconfirmed|2010-02-19

[Bug lto/70929] [6/7/8 regression] Cross-module inlining for functions having argument passed by reference is no longer working.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70929 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70929 > > --- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka --- > Hmm, this actually looks reasonable for me

[Bug ipa/57218] [6/7/8 Regression] Excessive inlining even at -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57218 --- Comment #13 from Aldy Hernandez --- (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #12) > Set component as IPA so it stays at my radar. It is probably too late for > GCC 8 but I will try to finally take a look next stage1. Inlining those >

[Bug target/84172] option "-O3" create slower code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84172 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/84204] [8 Regression] [graphite] ICE in set_codegen_error, at graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c:206

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84204 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/84205] [8 Regression] [graphite] ICE in set_codegen_error, at graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c:206

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84205 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/84190] [7/8 Regression] double arithmetic on x86 no longer rounds to nearest

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84190 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug sanitizer/84210] __ubsan_handle_builtin_unreachable shoun't be const

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84210 --- Comment #2 from Andrey Ryabinin --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > Confirmed. Note that I'm not sure it makes no sense - it just means the > function has no side-effect besides not returning ;) > Well, GCC docs say that

[Bug sanitizer/84208] fsanitize-address-use-after-scope Not working for ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84208 --- Comment #4 from Akhilesh Kumar --- Please find Patch and test Case I tried but unable to attached patch as Attachment :( My Changes for address-use-after-scope which is working for X86 but not for ARM target --- gcc/asan.c |

[Bug tree-optimization/39612] [6/7/8 Regression] LIM inserts loads from uninitialized local memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2009-10-05 20:09:44 |2018-2-5 --- Comment #30 from Richard

[Bug tree-optimization/13962] [tree-ssa] make "fold" use alias information to optimize pointer comparisons

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13962 --- Comment #14 from Richard Biener --- *** Bug 84188 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug tree-optimization/84188] assume non-null malloc pointers are distinct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84188 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/84200] [8 Regression] r256888 causes 30% performance regression of 519.lbm_r at -Ofast generic tuning on Zen

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84200 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug tree-optimization/84106] loop distribution cost-model needs work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84106 --- Comment #6 from Daniel Fruzynski --- When you will be revisiting your cost-model for loops, please also take a look on this code. test2 has one assignment moved to separate loops, and it is about twice as

[Bug target/84209] [avr] Don't split SP in split2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84209 --- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay --- Created attachment 43338 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43338=edit Proposed patch against v7

[Bug tree-optimization/82518] [8 regression] gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 fails on armeb since r252917

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518 --- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez --- (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #11) > My setup uses armeb-none-linux-gnueabihf (as opposed to armeb-eabi as you > report). I have never tried armeb-eabi. > > I am also using qemu as simulator

[Bug target/84211] New: [avr] Perform a post-reload register optimization pass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84211 Bug ID: 84211 Summary: [avr] Perform a post-reload register optimization pass Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3

[Bug sanitizer/84210] __ubsan_handle_builtin_unreachable shoun't be const

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84210 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug lto/84212] New: -Wno-* does not disable warnings from -flto link stage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84212 Bug ID: 84212 Summary: -Wno-* does not disable warnings from -flto link stage Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/82518] [8 regression] gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 fails on armeb since r252917

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518 --- Comment #13 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Aldy, > pc: 8ca4, instr: e1c520fc > pc: 4, instr: ea00089b > > I took a peek at the executable being run with "/my-arm-build/objdudump -D > the-executable.exe", and I see we are failing in >

[Bug middle-end/64501] Unreachable catch BB for try blocks that cannot create an exception of specific type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64501 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/27855] [6/7/8 regression] reassociation causes the RA to be confused

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27855 --- Comment #55 from Richard Biener --- I think the original report is about x87 math vs. SSE math. It's a bit hard to benchmark this through the releases given changes in tuning and vector feature sets (-march=native is out of the question).

[Bug target/27855] [6/7/8 regression] reassociation causes the RA to be confused

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27855 --- Comment #57 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27855 > > --- Comment #56 from Aldy Hernandez --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment

[Bug c/84179] -save-temps breaks implicit-fallthrough comment heuristic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84179 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Version|unknown

[Bug target/27855] [6/7/8 regression] reassociation causes the RA to be confused

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27855 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/27827] [4.0 Regression] gcc 4 produces worse x87 code on all platforms than gcc 3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27827 Bug 27827 depends on bug 27855, which changed state. Bug 27855 Summary: [6/7/8 regression] reassociation causes the RA to be confused https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27855 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/84190] [7/8 Regression] double arithmetic on x86 no longer rounds to nearest

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84190 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug c++/84196] [6/7/8 Regression] invalid call to a function template with a vector argument silently accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84196 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.5

[Bug target/84211] [avr] Perform a post-reload register optimization pass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84211 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug lto/81004] [7/8 Regression] linking failed with -flto and static libboost_program_options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004 --- Comment #21 from Jan Hubicka --- > It's really fixed on trunk since r257023. Seems like it just went latent. I do not see how that change can fix the problem. Honza

[Bug middle-end/63311] [6/7/8 Regression] -O1 optimization introduces valgrind warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63311 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2014-09-22 00:00:00 |2018-2-5 CC|

[Bug c++/84197] Segmentation fault when setting -g

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84197 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/84196] [6/7/8 Regression] invalid call to a function template with a vector argument silently accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84196 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug gcov-profile/84137] Typo in gcov online documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84137 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||8.0 Known to fail|

[Bug gcov-profile/84137] Typo in gcov online documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84137 --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Mon Feb 5 09:59:16 2018 New Revision: 257384 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257384=gcc=rev Log: Fix GCOV documentation (PR gcov-profile/84137). 2018-02-05 Martin Liska

[Bug target/27855] [6/7/8 regression] reassociation causes the RA to be confused

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27855 --- Comment #56 from Aldy Hernandez --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #55) > Note the original report used -O and Aldhy used -O2 but we are talking > about a benchmark and when you use -ffast-math you also use -O3. Thanks, I will

[Bug c++/82782] ICE: nested template alias and specialized template with auto template parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82782 --- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Mon Feb 5 11:15:55 2018 New Revision: 257388 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257388=gcc=rev Log: 2018-02-05 Paolo Carlini PR

[Bug c++/70401] [c++1z on mingw]compile variadic template failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70401 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jyong at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug c++/84192] [7/8 Regression] ICE with statement expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84192 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |7.3.1 Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/84197] Segmentation fault when setting -g

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84197 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

[Bug sanitizer/84210] __ubsan_handle_builtin_unreachable shoun't be const

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84210 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug sanitizer/84208] fsanitize-address-use-after-scope Not working for ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84208 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/84204] [8 Regression] [graphite] ICE in set_codegen_error, at graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c:206

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84204 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- The limit you set to scev-max-expr-size is quite low but I expect it just needs a more complicated testcase to trigger this with larger values. We apply this limit in tree-chrec.c very inconsequential so I

[Bug ipa/81360] [8 Regression] ice in estimate_edge_growth, at ipa-inline.h:86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81360 --- Comment #15 from Martin Liška --- Should(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #14) > The new test fails on arm and aarch64: > FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr81360.C -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin > -fno-fat-lto-objects scan-ipa-dump icf

[Bug sanitizer/84210] __ubsan_handle_builtin_unreachable shoun't be const

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84210 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- I don't remember if the const was needed. I guess if the testcases added in r217553 still pass even without the const then we can get rid of it.

[Bug tree-optimization/82518] [8 regression] gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 fails on armeb since r252917

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518 --- Comment #14 from Aldy Hernandez --- (In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #13) > Hi Aldy, > > > > pc: 8ca4, instr: e1c520fc > > pc: 4, instr: ea00089b > > > > I took a peek at the executable being run with "/my-arm-build/objdudump -D > >

[Bug lto/81004] [7/8 Regression] linking failed with -flto and static libboost_program_options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004 --- Comment #23 from Jan Hubicka --- Created attachment 43340 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43340=edit Patch in am testing This patch transitions the info to merged tree and adds sanity check that we miss no resolutions.

[Bug tree-optimization/82518] [8 regression] gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 fails on armeb since r252917

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518 --- Comment #17 from Christophe Lyon --- (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #12) > along with the isub8 subroutine, and continue chopping things similarly > upward until you get to the abort that fails. Then see if you can chop >

[Bug lto/81004] [7/8 Regression] linking failed with -flto and static libboost_program_options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004 --- Comment #22 from Jan Hubicka --- OK, the bug reproduces with tree.c changes reverted and I see what is going on. We have two files in res file we get: 2 lines.o 7 245 4d647b2020ca5815 PREVAILING_DEF_IRONLY _Z8validatev 334 4d647b2020ca5815

[Bug c++/84186] nested template qualified-id not parsed correctly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84186 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- Yes, I would have thought it's needed too. The other compilers I tried accept it with or without the 'template' keyword.

[Bug libstdc++/84170] std::find_if performance issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84170 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- When the code was written it was definitely beneficial to manually unroll, as measurements at the time showed. Any change would have to be based on measurements, not just unverified assumptions.

[Bug lto/84213] New: 521.wrf_r from SPEC 2017 fails to build (link) with LTO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84213 Bug ID: 84213 Summary: 521.wrf_r from SPEC 2017 fails to build (link) with LTO Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/82518] [8 regression] gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 fails on armeb since r252917

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518 --- Comment #15 from Aldy Hernandez --- (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #14) > (In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #13) > > Hi Aldy, > > > > > > > pc: 8ca4, instr: e1c520fc > > > pc: 4, instr: ea00089b > > > > > > I took a peek at

[Bug middle-end/84200] [8 Regression] r256888 causes 30% performance regression of 519.lbm_r at -Ofast generic tuning on Zen

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84200 --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Sebastian Peryt from comment #1) > I'm not sure if that can be treated as duplicate but that performance > degradation looks like is related to PR84149. I guess it will be a different story as

[Bug target/68028] [6/7/8 regression] Compilation error "lto1: error: target attribute or pragma changes single precision floating point" with LTO on PowerPC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68028 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, nickc at redhat dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68028 > > --- Comment #11 from Nick Clifton --- > Hi Richard, > > > If the backend doesn't

[Bug lto/63688] all_symbols_read_handler: Assertion `lto_wrapper_argv' failed.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63688 Allan Jensen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||linux at carewolf dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug ipa/84149] [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 505.mcf/605.mcf ~10% performance regression with r256888

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84149 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/84214] New: recip and slp passes conflict

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84214 Bug ID: 84214 Summary: recip and slp passes conflict Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end

[Bug tree-optimization/82518] [8 regression] gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 fails on armeb since r252917

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518 --- Comment #18 from Aldy Hernandez --- (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #17) > (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #12) > > > along with the isub8 subroutine, and continue chopping things similarly > > upward until you get to the

[Bug c++/84191] Compiler ICEs when trying to resolve impossible arithmetic operations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84191 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-bisection, |

[Bug middle-end/84200] [8 Regression] r256888 causes 30% performance regression of 519.lbm_r at -Ofast generic tuning on Zen

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84200 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/84200] [8 Regression] r256888 causes 30% performance regression of 519.lbm_r at -Ofast generic tuning on Zen

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84200 --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- Confirmed, thank you Martin for reporting that. I was able to reproduce that on Zen. I see ~25% regression on train size and reverting following predictor helps for me: -DEF_PREDICTOR (PRED_LOOP_EXIT, "loop

[Bug tree-optimization/82518] [8 regression] gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 fails on armeb since r252917

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518 --- Comment #16 from Richard Earnshaw --- (In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #13) > Hi Aldy, > > > > pc: 8ca4, instr: e1c520fc > > pc: 4, instr: ea00089b > > > > I took a peek at the executable being run with "/my-arm-build/objdudump -D >

[Bug c/84179] -save-temps breaks implicit-fallthrough comment heuristic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84179 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug preprocessor/78497] compiling with -save-temps adds -Wimplicit-fallthrough warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78497 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||Patrick.Schluter at ec dot europa.

[Bug go/84215] New: Random results in go/libgo tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84215 Bug ID: 84215 Summary: Random results in go/libgo tests Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: go

[Bug c++/84191] Compiler ICEs when trying to resolve impossible arithmetic operations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84191 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug go/84215] Random results in go/libgo tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84215 --- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor --- What do you mean by "random results?" Can you post some output? Thanks.

[Bug lto/81004] [7/8 Regression] linking failed with -flto and static libboost_program_options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81004 --- Comment #24 from Matt Godbolt --- Thanks so much for looking in to this Jan!

[Bug libstdc++/84216] New: std::get_time fails to parse output from std::put_time, but strptime can parse them (c++11)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84216 Bug ID: 84216 Summary: std::get_time fails to parse output from std::put_time, but strptime can parse them (c++11) Product: gcc Version: 7.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/84145] Wrong CET options processing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84145 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nickc at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug lto/84212] -Wno-* does not disable warnings from -flto link stage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84212 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug c/84195] newlines in deprecated diagnostics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84195 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/84113] [7/8 Regression] libgcc/unwind.inc:136:1: unrecognizable insn: internal compiler error on Darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113 --- Comment #33 from Douglas Mencken --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #32) > Yes, run "make -k check" (add -jN to taste if you have multiple CPUs). > And then run contrib/test_summary. See if that is as expected (compare > it to

[Bug target/84113] [7/8 Regression] libgcc/unwind.inc:136:1: unrecognizable insn: internal compiler error on Darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113 --- Comment #34 from Douglas Mencken --- And this https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00181.html

[Bug target/84113] [7/8 Regression] libgcc/unwind.inc:136:1: unrecognizable insn: internal compiler error on Darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113 --- Comment #35 from Douglas Mencken --- (In reply to Douglas Mencken from comment #34) > And this https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00181.html By merging that patch this issue is okay to close as resolved

[Bug target/84113] [7/8 Regression] libgcc/unwind.inc:136:1: unrecognizable insn: internal compiler error on Darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84113 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/84195] newlines in deprecated diagnostics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84195 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic --- Comment #2 from Martin

[Bug tree-optimization/82518] [8 regression] gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 fails on armeb since r252917

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518 --- Comment #19 from Aldy Hernandez --- (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #16) > (In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #13) > > Hi Aldy, > > > > > > > pc: 8ca4, instr: e1c520fc > > > pc: 4, instr: ea00089b > > > > > > I took a peek

[Bug tree-optimization/82518] [8 regression] gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 fails on armeb since r252917

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518 --- Comment #20 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Aldy, >>> for the store is not double word aligned. Which leads me to wonder, >>> what value is stored in r5 when the STRD instruction is being executed ? >> >> 1: x/i $pc >> => 0x8c24

[Bug tree-optimization/82518] [8 regression] gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 fails on armeb since r252917

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518 --- Comment #21 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Aldy, >>> instruction. :-( Looking at the code in Handle_Store_Double() in >>> sim/arm/armemu.c, I think that the reason is probably because the address >>> for the store is not double word aligned.

[Bug sanitizer/84208] fsanitize-address-use-after-scope Not working for ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84208 --- Comment #2 from Akhilesh Kumar --- > Does it work on non-changed gcc 7.2 on arm? Not yet verified because unable to cross compile gcc 7.2. > And with arm do mean arm-linux-gnueabi as the target or aarch64-linux-gnu? I am using

[Bug ipa/57218] [6/7/8 Regression] Excessive inlining even at -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57218 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug lto/70929] [6/7/8 regression] Cross-module inlining for functions having argument passed by reference is no longer working.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70929 --- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka --- Hmm, this actually looks reasonable for me too. Shall I give it a try and figure out what incompatibilities we get here? What about K prototypes?

[Bug middle-end/84200] r256888 causes 30% performance regression of 519.lbm_r at -Ofast generic tuning on Zen

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84200 Sebastian Peryt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sebastian.peryt at intel dot com ---

[Bug ipa/80726] [7/8 Regression] Destructor not inlined anymore (regression)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80726 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug ipa/65797] [6/7/8 regression] IPA ICF causes function to be emitted with no debug line info

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65797 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|hubicka at ucw dot cz |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug tree-optimization/84106] loop distribution cost-model needs work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84106 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug gcov-profile/84107] indirect call profiling broken with multiple DSOs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84107 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug gcov-profile/84137] Typo in gcov online documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84137 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/82518] [8 regression] gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/in-pack.f90 fails on armeb since r252917

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82518 --- Comment #11 from Christophe Lyon --- My setup uses armeb-none-linux-gnueabihf (as opposed to armeb-eabi as you report). I have never tried armeb-eabi. I am also using qemu as simulator (in user mode, not in system mode). The failure in

  1   2   >