[Bug c++/84269] More suggestions for missing #include

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84269 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|C++ FE does not suggest |More suggestions for

Re: Strict aliasing-related bug even with optimizations disabled

On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Jonathon Reinhart wrote: > This was originally posted on Stack Overflow: > https://stackoverflow.com/a/49339771/119527 > > The following program: > > #include > > static void pshort(short val) > { >printf("0x%hx

[Bug fortran/84615] [8 Regression] Executable Segfault for some tests compiled with -m32 after r256284

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84615 --- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres --- The following variant without module of the test in comment 8 behaves the same way program TestStringTools character(len=52) :: txt character(len=1), dimension(52) :: chararr = &

[Bug tree-optimization/84929] New: ICE at -O3 on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu: tree check: expected polynomial_chrec, have nop_expr in analyze_siv_subscript_cst_affine, at tree-data-ref.c:3018

zero/trunk/root-gcc --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib Thread model: posix gcc version 8.0.1 20180317 (experimental) [trunk revision 258620] (GCC) $ gcc-trunk -O3 abc.c during GIMPLE pass: pcom abc.c: In function ‘fn1’: abc.c:2:6: internal compiler error: tree check

[Bug other/44032] internals documentation is not legally safe to use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032 --- Comment #4 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3) > Is this fixed in the same way that bug 44035 was fixed? No. 44035 was about the inability to fix, 44032 is about the actual licensing state of the

[Bug c++/84269] More suggestions for missing #include

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84269 --- Comment #5 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #4) > And another, as reported at > https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/84op5c/usability_improvements_in_gcc_8/ > dvtl76x/ > > > const auto s = strlen("test"); > >

[Bug fortran/66310] Problems with intrinsic repeat for large number of copies

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310 --- Comment #23 from Jerry DeLisle --- Ok I see it. In fbuf.c (fbuf_alloc): /* Round up to nearest multiple of the current buffer length. */ newlen = ((u->fbuf->pos + len) / u->fbuf->len + 1) *u->fbuf->len; u->fbuf->buf =

[Bug fortran/66310] Problems with intrinsic repeat for large number of copies

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310 --- Comment #24 from Jerry DeLisle --- (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #23) > Ok I see it. > > In fbuf.c (fbuf_alloc): > > /* Round up to nearest multiple of the current buffer length. */ > newlen = ((u->fbuf->pos + len) /

[Bug other/26061] error and warning count

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26061 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Component|middle-end |other Target Milestone|---

[Bug other/84889] Ideas on revamping how we format diagnostics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84889 --- Comment #7 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #5) > Note to self: need to look at Elm. http://elm-lang.org/blog/compiler-errors-for-humans http://elm-lang.org/blog/compilers-as-assistants

[Bug c++/84925] New: ICE with segfault in __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ (regression over gcc-7)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84925 Bug ID: 84925 Summary: ICE with segfault in __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ (regression over gcc-7) Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/84925] [8 Regression] ICE with segfault in __PRETTY_FUNCTION__

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84925 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek --- --- a/gcc/cp/pt.c +++ b/gcc/cp/pt.c @@ -12898,7 +12898,7 @@ enclosing_instantiation_of (tree otctx) for (; flambda_count < lambda_count && fn && LAMBDA_FUNCTION_P (fn); fn =

Re: Strict aliasing-related bug even with optimizations disabled

On 17/03/18 14:40 -0400, Jonathon Reinhart wrote: This was originally posted on Stack Overflow: https://stackoverflow.com/a/49339771/119527 This mailing list is for automated emails from Bugzilla, not for reporting bugs. Please use Bugzilla to report bugs, as explained at

[Bug libstdc++/84928] New: std::accumulate should move the accumulator argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84928 Bug ID: 84928 Summary: std::accumulate should move the accumulator argument Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug libstdc++/84928] std::accumulate should move the accumulator argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84928 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- This isn't a bug, because that change has only been in the working draft for a few months, and is not part of any published standard yet. https://wg21.link/p0616R0

[Bug fortran/84924] New: Erroneous error in C_F_POINTER

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84924 Bug ID: 84924 Summary: Erroneous error in C_F_POINTER Product: gcc Version: 7.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug fortran/66310] Problems with intrinsic repeat for large number of copies

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310 --- Comment #22 from Dominique d'Humieres --- For the original test program p character :: z = 'z' print *, repeat(z, huge(1_4)) end I get % gfc pr66310.f90 -m32 % ./a.out > zzz a.out(22882,0xa9b3c1c0) malloc: ***

[Bug fortran/84922] fortran reports inconsistency in rank of arguments in interface and contained procedures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922 --- Comment #2 from William Clodius --- FWIW I get the same misleading message for other variants of illegal code.

[Bug c++/84925] [8 Regression] ICE with segfault in __PRETTY_FUNCTION__

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84925 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Started with r251567.

[Bug fortran/84924] Erroneous error in C_F_POINTER

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84924 --- Comment #3 from Seth Johnson --- That's correct, because those standards include TS 29113 which allows arrays to be referenced. `-std=f2008ts` also works. The problem is that the usage described is valid Fortran 2003 but is marked otherwise.

[Bug lto/84926] New: error: inlining failed in call to always_inline ‘_mm_crc32_u64’: target specific option mismatch _mm_crc32_u64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84926 Bug ID: 84926 Summary: error: inlining failed in call to always_inline ‘_mm_crc32_u64’: target specific option mismatch _mm_crc32_u64 Product: gcc Version: 7.3.1

[Bug c++/84927] New: [7/8 Regressiion] ICE with NSDMI and reference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84927 Bug ID: 84927 Summary: [7/8 Regressiion] ICE with NSDMI and reference Product: gcc Version: 8.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-on-valid-code Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/82992] ICE in create_int_parameter_array, at fortran/module.c:6586

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82992 --- Comment #4 from Harald Anlauf --- The accepts-invalid also happens for the simpler examples: subroutine sub (c_int) use iso_c_binding, only: c_int end The NAG compiler complains: NAG Fortran Compiler Release 6.1(Tozai) Build 6106

[Bug c++/84925] [8 Regression] ICE with segfault in __PRETTY_FUNCTION__

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84925 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/84925] [8 Regression] ICE with segfault in __PRETTY_FUNCTION__

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84925 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- template struct A { static const int value = 0; static auto constexpr fn = [] { return __PRETTY_FUNCTION__; }; }; template int x = A::value; auto s = x;

[Bug fortran/84922] fortran reports inconsistency in rank of arguments in interface and contained procedures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922 Harald Anlauf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gmx dot de --- Comment #1

[Bug fortran/66310] Problems with intrinsic repeat for large number of copies

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310 --- Comment #21 from Harald Anlauf --- (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #20) >program p > character(kind=1), parameter :: z = 'z' > integer, parameter :: big = 536870911 > !print *, repeat(z, huge(1_4)/4) >

[Bug fortran/84924] Erroneous error in C_F_POINTER

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84924 --- Comment #2 from Harald Anlauf --- There is no error for -std=f2008ts or -std=2018.

[Bug tree-optimization/84811] ICE on valid code at -O3 in 64-bit mode on x86_64-linux-gnu: in smallest_mode_for_size, at stor-layout.c:355

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84811 --- Comment #17 from Zhendong Su --- Created attachment 43694 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43694=edit output from "gcctk -O3 -S -fdump-tree-all small.c"

[Bug fortran/84924] Erroneous error in C_F_POINTER

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84924 --- Comment #1 from Seth Johnson --- - Correction in test case: `call dellocate(` should be replaced by `deallocate(` (but this doesn't affect the behavior or test outcome - Also note that the Fortran 2003 standard itself includes a structurally

Strict aliasing-related bug even with optimizations disabled

This was originally posted on Stack Overflow: https://stackoverflow.com/a/49339771/119527 The following program: #include static void pshort(short val) { printf("0x%hx ", val); } int main(void) { short A[] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}; #define EXP

[Bug tree-optimization/84811] ICE on valid code at -O3 in 64-bit mode on x86_64-linux-gnu: in smallest_mode_for_size, at stor-layout.c:355

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84811 --- Comment #18 from Zhendong Su --- > and attach small.tar.bz2, that will contain all the dumps. Jakub, done; please take a look.

[Bug c++/79937] [6/7 Regression] ICE in replace_placeholders_r

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] ICE in |[6/7 Regression] ICE in

[Bug c++/84925] ICE with segfault in __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ (regression over gcc-7)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84925 --- Comment #1 from Hannes Hauswedell --- Created attachment 43693 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43693=edit intermediate file from crash

[Bug c++/71251] [6/7/8 regression] ICE on invalid code, with unusual template name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71251 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug middle-end/54183] Generate __udivmoddi4 instead of __udivdi3 plus __umoddi3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54183 --- Comment #5 from Ruslan --- Yes, this is exactly the problem: the generic case is optimized while the special case, where the divisor is a compile-time constant, isn't.

[Bug fortran/66310] Problems with intrinsic repeat for large number of copies

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66310 --- Comment #20 from Jerry DeLisle --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #19) > > Can this be closed. > > The problem is not fixed in 32-bit mode. Dominique, what are you seeing? This is working fine with my system with -m32.

[Bug c/84923] New: gcc.dg/attr-weakref-1.c failed on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84923 Bug ID: 84923 Summary: gcc.dg/attr-weakref-1.c failed on aarch64 Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c++/71251] [6/7/8 regression] ICE on invalid code, with unusual template name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71251 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #7 from Alexandre

[Bug c++/71965] [6/7/8 regression] [concepts] Substitution error *after* failure to satisfy an earlier constraint

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71965 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #8 from Alexandre

[Bug c/84919] [8 Regression] error: passing argument 1 to restrict-qualified parameter aliases with argument 5 [-Werror=restrict]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug target/84574] Function return thunks shouldn't be aliased to indirect branch thunks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84574 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/84918] Better handling of "std::cout >> 42;"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84918 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- This seems pretty low priority though, there's a lot of output, but all of it tells you the problem: 42.cc:4:18: note: ‘std::ostream {aka std::basic_ostream}’ is not derived from

[Bug target/84530] -mfunction-return=thunk does not work for simple_return_pop_internal insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84530 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/84072] [meta-bug] -mindirect-branch=thunk issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84072 Bug 84072 depends on bug 84530, which changed state. Bug 84530 Summary: -mfunction-return=thunk does not work for simple_return_pop_internal insn https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84530 What|Removed

[Bug target/84072] [meta-bug] -mindirect-branch=thunk issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84072 Bug 84072 depends on bug 84574, which changed state. Bug 84574 Summary: Function return thunks shouldn't be aliased to indirect branch thunks https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84574 What|Removed

[Bug c/84919] [8 Regression] error: passing argument 1 to restrict-qualified parameter aliases with argument 5 [-Werror=restrict]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- On the other side, the warning matches the documented behavior and it might be too difficult to add all the exceptions when we know that the argument will not be really dereferenced.

[Bug c++/67796] Definition for custom std::swap found by ADL but not used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67796 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/71965] [6/7/8 regression] [concepts] Substitution error *after* failure to satisfy an earlier constraint

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71965 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug fortran/84615] [8 Regression] Executable Segfault for some tests compiled with -m32 after r256284

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84615 --- Comment #9 from Janne Blomqvist --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8) > Another test that does not require -fdefault-integer-8 > > module chtest > contains > function chararray2string(chararray) result(text) >

[Bug target/84902] [8 Regression] 549.fotonik3d_r from SPEC2017 fails verification with -Ofast -march=native on Zen since r258518

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84902 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Sat Mar 17 11:12:00 2018 New Revision: 258618 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258618=gcc=rev Log: PR target/84902 * config/i386/i386.c (initial_ix86_tune_features,

[Bug tree-optimization/84921] [5 Regression] With -O3 gcc incorrectly assumes aligned SSE instructions (e.g. movdqa) can be used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84921 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/84811] ICE on valid code at -O3 in 64-bit mode on x86_64-linux-gnu: in smallest_mode_for_size, at stor-layout.c:355

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84811 --- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek --- The first dump is some gimple dump (*.*t.*, so not cse dump, and the latter one is without optimizations, I thought you get the ICE only with -O3. Just do: rm -rf small.c.* gcctk -O3 -S -fdump-tree-all

[Bug c/84919] [8 Regression] error: passing argument 1 to restrict-qualified parameter aliases with argument 5 [-Werror=restrict]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6) > On the other side, the warning matches the documented behavior and it might > be too difficult to add all the exceptions when we know that the argument > will not be