[Bug tree-optimization/89135] [7/8/9 Regression] internal compiler error: in gimple_split_edge, at tree-cfg.c:2747

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89135 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/89115] compile time and memory hog

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89115 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Jan 31 08:09:59 2019 New Revision: 268414 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268414&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-01-31 Richard Biener PR rtl-optimization/89115

[Bug c++/89119] [7/8 Regression] internal compiler error: in tsubst_copy with RANGE_EXPR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89119 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Known to work|

gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug sanitizer/89124] __attribute__((no_sanitize_address)) interferes with __attribute__((target(xxx)))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89124 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Jan 31 08:20:45 2019 New Revision: 268415 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268415&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR sanitizer/89124 * ipa-inline.c (sanitize_attrs_match_fo

[Bug libstdc++/89130] [9 Regression] std::vector relocation fails for types with deleted move constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89130 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Target Milestone|---

[Bug sanitizer/89124] __attribute__((no_sanitize_address)) interferes with __attribute__((target(xxx)))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89124 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/89135] [7/8/9 Regression] internal compiler error: in gimple_split_edge, at tree-cfg.c:2747

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89135 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Status|NEW

[Bug libstdc++/88170] [9 Regression] pretty printer FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88170 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/89135] [7/8/9 Regression] internal compiler error: in gimple_split_edge, at tree-cfg.c:2747

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89135 --- Comment #3 from Shubham Narlawar --- I could reproduce the ICE on gcc-8.2 but not on trunk.

[Bug tree-optimization/89134] A missing optimization opportunity for a simple branch in loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Status|

[Bug rtl-optimization/89115] compile time and memory hog

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89115 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||9.0 Known to fail|9.0

[Bug other/87199] Thread local storage dynamic initialization behaviour differs Linux vs macOS

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87199 --- Comment #3 from Ev Drikos --- Created attachment 45573 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45573&action=edit program output & gcc configuration in Yosemite

[Bug other/87199] Thread local storage dynamic initialization behaviour differs Linux vs macOS

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87199 --- Comment #4 from Ev Drikos --- Created attachment 45574 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45574&action=edit program output & gcc configuration in Sierra Hello, Having run this small test in older systems also, Yosemite (10

[Bug c++/84733] [8/9 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault (check_local_shadow())

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84733 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P4 |P3 Severity|minor

[Bug fortran/81651] Enhancement request: have f951 print out fully qualified module file name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81651 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #2 from Domin

[Bug rtl-optimization/89115] compile time and memory hog

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89115 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Jan 31 10:00:26 2019 New Revision: 268416 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268416&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-01-31 Richard Biener Backport from mainline 20

[Bug libbacktrace/89136] New: libbacktrace/elf.c:2941: suspicious assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89136 Bug ID: 89136 Summary: libbacktrace/elf.c:2941: suspicious assignment Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libb

[Bug libbacktrace/89136] libbacktrace/elf.c:2941: suspicious assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89136 David Binderman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug fortran/88678] [9 regression] Many gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_X.f90 test cases fail starting with r267465

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678 nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nsz at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug c++/84974] [8 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (ovl_first()/location_of())

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84974 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE: |[8 Regression] ICE: |S

[Bug go/89123] Too many go test failures on s390x-linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89123 rdapp at linux dot ibm.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdapp at linux dot ibm.com -

[Bug fortran/88678] [9 regression] Many gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_X.f90 test cases fail starting with r267465

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678 --- Comment #20 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to nsz from comment #19) > that code was there for a reason.. now aarch64 fails because it cannot > detect if the flags are supported or not. > > so if detection is turned off then on aarch64 "suppo

[Bug libgomp/89137] New: gcc/omp-low.c:7135: possible read of uninit memory ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89137 Bug ID: 89137 Summary: gcc/omp-low.c:7135: possible read of uninit memory ? Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug fortran/88678] [9 regression] Many gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_X.f90 test cases fail starting with r267465

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678 --- Comment #21 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org --- this fix undid the change for bug 78314 do you plan to backport it to gcc 7,8 branches ? note that in principle on targets where trapping is not supported the "immediate alternate exception handling

[Bug libgomp/89137] gcc/omp-low.c:7135: possible read of uninit memory ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89137 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- As this is all in if (code == OMP_FOR || code == OMP_SECTIONS) guarded block, that warning is obviously a false positive. I guess I can just drop the " if (code == OMP_SECTIONS)" to make it happy.

[Bug fortran/88678] [9 regression] Many gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_X.f90 test cases fail starting with r267465

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678 --- Comment #22 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to nsz from comment #21) > this fix undid the change for bug 78314 > do you plan to backport it to gcc 7,8 branches ? > > note that in principle on targets where trapping is not supported > the "imm

[Bug fortran/88678] [9 regression] Many gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_X.f90 test cases fail starting with r267465

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678 --- Comment #23 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #22) > (In reply to nsz from comment #21) > > this fix undid the change for bug 78314 > > do you plan to backport it to gcc 7,8 branches ? Yes, I'd like to backport the f

[Bug libbacktrace/89136] libbacktrace/elf.c:2941: suspicious assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89136 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/89138] New: ICE on valid C++11 code: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9993

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89138 Bug ID: 89138 Summary: ICE on valid C++11 code: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9993 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/89137] gcc/omp-low.c:7135: possible read of uninit memory ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89137 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||openmp Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/89135] [7/8/9 Regression] internal compiler error: in gimple_split_edge, at tree-cfg.c:2747

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89135 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Jan 31 11:51:59 2019 New Revision: 268417 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268417&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-01-31 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/89135

[Bug tree-optimization/89135] [7/8 Regression] internal compiler error: in gimple_split_edge, at tree-cfg.c:2747

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89135 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||9.0 Summary|[7/8/9 Regressio

[Bug fortran/81651] Enhancement request: have f951 print out fully qualified module file name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81651 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #2) > What is a "fully qualified module name"? Error: Module file /full/path/to/module/mymodule.mod is bletchful.

[Bug rtl-optimization/89115] compile time and memory hog

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89115 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Jan 31 12:05:19 2019 New Revision: 268418 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268418&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-01-31 Richard Biener Backport from mainline 20

[Bug rtl-optimization/89115] compile time and memory hog

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89115 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug libbacktrace/89136] libbacktrace/elf.c:2941: suspicious assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89136 --- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries --- Author: vries Date: Thu Jan 31 12:17:32 2019 New Revision: 268419 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268419&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [libbacktrace] Fix .gnu_debugaltlink build-id check The 'debugaltlink_name

[Bug libbacktrace/89136] libbacktrace/elf.c:2941: suspicious assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89136 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug libbacktrace/89136] libbacktrace/elf.c:2941: suspicious assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89136 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/89138] ICE on valid C++11 code: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9993

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89138 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libbacktrace/89136] libbacktrace/elf.c:2941: suspicious assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89136 --- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > Shouldn't we have a warning for this =+ vs. += case (of course, =- is fine)? I found PR45358 - "Diagnostic could be issued for old C style a =+ b and similar case

[Bug c/45358] Diagnostic could be issued for old C style a =+ b and similar cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45358 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 f

[Bug ipa/79966] [9 Regression] run time more than twice slower when using -fipa-cp-clone

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79966 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|7.5 |9.0 Summary|[7 Regression] run

[Bug tree-optimization/89134] A missing optimization opportunity for a simple branch in loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134 Jiangning Liu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug target/88494] [9 Regression] polyhedron 10% mdbx runtime regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88494 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/88494] [9 Regression] polyhedron 10% mdbx runtime regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88494 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug target/88494] [9 Regression] polyhedron 10% mdbx runtime regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88494 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug rtl-optimization/84101] [7/8/9 Regression] -O3 and -ftree-vectorize trying too hard for function returning trivial pair-of-uint64_t-structure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84101 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- lower-subreg.c doesn't consider this for multiple reasons: 1) it doesn't have VEC_CONCAT handling, but that could be easily added 2) V2DImode isn't considered, because its move cost is the same as scalar mov

[Bug middle-end/89008] [7/8 Regression] O2 and O1 results differ for simple test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008 --- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Thu Jan 31 13:53:06 2019 New Revision: 268422 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268422&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2018-01-31 Bill Schmidt PR tree-optimization/89008

[Bug rtl-optimization/89116] [8/9 Regression] ICE in cfg_layout_redirect_edge_and_branch_force, at cfgrtl.c:4482

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89116 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug c++/88988] [8 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in lookup_name_real_1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88988 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE: |[8 Regression] ICE: |S

[Bug tree-optimization/88932] [8/9 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (Error: definition in block 29 does not dominate use in block 25)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88932 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug c++/88394] [8/9 Regression] g++ ICE (Segmentation fault) in insert_capture_proxy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88394 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Related to e.g. PR89138 - lambdas and VLAs don't play nicely together right now.

[Bug ipa/89104] ICE: Segmentation fault (in tree_int_cst_elt_check)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89104 --- Comment #5 from Wilco --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > I really don't like these aarch64 warnings, declare simd is an optimization > (admittedly with ABI consequences) and warning about this by default is > weird, > + it is g

[Bug ipa/89104] ICE: Segmentation fault (in tree_int_cst_elt_check)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89104 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Wilco from comment #5) > I agree backend specific warnings are not ideal but it's unclear whether a > better solution exists beyond just not emitting these warnings at all and > letting the user

[Bug tree-optimization/89139] New: GCC emits code for static functions that aren't used by the optimized code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89139 Bug ID: 89139 Summary: GCC emits code for static functions that aren't used by the optimized code Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: no

[Bug other/89140] New: libiberty/pex-unix.c fails to compile in aarch64-to-x86_64 cross build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89140 Bug ID: 89140 Summary: libiberty/pex-unix.c fails to compile in aarch64-to-x86_64 cross build Product: gcc Version: 8.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/88932] [8/9 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (Error: definition in block 29 does not dominate use in block 25)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88932 bin.cheng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amker.cheng at gmail dot com --- Comment #4

[Bug ipa/89139] GCC emits code for static functions that aren't used by the optimized code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89139 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization CC|

[Bug c++/88752] [8/9 Regression] ICE in enclosing_instantiation_of, at cp/pt.c:13328

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88752 --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Thu Jan 31 15:03:21 2019 New Revision: 268424 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268424&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/88752 - ICE with lambda and constexpr if. In this testcase

[Bug tree-optimization/88932] [8/9 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (Error: definition in block 29 does not dominate use in block 25)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88932 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 31 Jan 2019, amker.cheng at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88932 > > bin.cheng changed: > >What|Removed |Added >

[Bug c++/88752] [8 Regression] ICE in enclosing_instantiation_of, at cp/pt.c:13328

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88752 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE in |[8 Regression] ICE in

[Bug preprocessor/89141] New: Documentation of -H ignores effect of include guards

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89141 Bug ID: 89141 Summary: Documentation of -H ignores effect of include guards Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compo

[Bug target/86487] [7/8/9 Regression] insn does not satisfy its constraints on arm big-endian

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86487 Vladimir Makarov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug target/86487] [7/8/9 Regression] insn does not satisfy its constraints on arm big-endian

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86487 --- Comment #10 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org --- Hi Vlad, I don't think it is a duplication. I believe this PR is caused by an issue with 'uses_hard_regs_p' and paradoxical subregs. I proposed a patch in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019

[Bug libfortran/78314] [aarch64] ieee_support_halting does not report unsupported fpu traps correctly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78314 --- Comment #12 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org --- this got reverted because of bug 88678 and because compile time and runtime support_halting are different. the compile time value is unconditionally true, which is wrong for aarch64 and arm: gcc/f

[Bug bootstrap/88714] [9 regression] bootstrap comparison failure on armv7l since r265398

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714 Matthew Malcomson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matmal01 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comm

[Bug libbacktrace/89136] libbacktrace/elf.c:2941: suspicious assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89136 --- Comment #7 from David Binderman --- (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #5) > Thanks for finding and reporting this. You are welcome. I was testing new clang-8.0.0-rc1 and hadn't compiled gcc with clang for a while. clang warns for "=+"

[Bug rtl-optimization/88596] [9 Regression] ICE: Maximum number of LRA assignment passes is achieved (30)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88596 Vladimir Makarov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug c++/89138] ICE on valid C++11 code: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.c:9993

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89138 Arseny Solokha changed: What|Removed |Added CC||asolokha at gmx dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug libfortran/78314] [aarch64] ieee_support_halting does not report unsupported fpu traps correctly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78314 --- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to nsz from comment #12) > i don't know how to change this to false for IEEE_SUPPORT_HALTING > on aarch64 and arm targets, but that would be a possible fix. --cut here-- Index: libgfortran/config/fp

[Bug rtl-optimization/88596] [9 Regression] ICE: Maximum number of LRA assignment passes is achieved (30)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88596 --- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha --- I'll check it on the next trunk snapshot and report back next Monday.

[Bug bootstrap/88714] [9 regression] bootstrap comparison failure on armv7l since r265398

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714 --- Comment #30 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Matthew Malcomson from comment #29) > I've been working on a patch that does very similar to the draft patch posted > above, and I notice a few things I've tried to avoid in it. > I doubt there

[Bug middle-end/89008] [7/8 Regression] O2 and O1 results differ for simple test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89008 --- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Thu Jan 31 17:14:36 2019 New Revision: 268425 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268425&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2018-01-31 Bill Schmidt Backport from mainline 2018

[Bug tree-optimization/88107] [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in find_outermost_region_in_block, at tree-cfg.c:7157

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88107 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug preprocessor/89142] New: Allow poisoning identifier from the command line

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89142 Bug ID: 89142 Summary: Allow poisoning identifier from the command line Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug libfortran/78314] [aarch64] ieee_support_halting does not report unsupported fpu traps correctly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78314 --- Comment #14 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #13) > (In reply to nsz from comment #12) > > i don't know how to change this to false for IEEE_SUPPORT_HALTING > > on aarch64 and arm targets, but that would be

[Bug libfortran/78314] [aarch64] ieee_support_halting does not report unsupported fpu traps correctly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78314 nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|nsz at gc

[Bug preprocessor/89142] Allow poisoning identifier from the command line

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89142 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug bootstrap/88714] [9 regression] bootstrap comparison failure on armv7l since r265398

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88714 --- Comment #31 from Matthew Malcomson --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #30) > (In reply to Matthew Malcomson from comment #29) > > I've been working on a patch that does very similar to the draft patch > > posted > > above, and I not

[Bug preprocessor/89142] Allow poisoning identifier from the command line

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89142 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 fr

[Bug c/89122] bad fix-it hint for FLT_MAX when is included

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89122 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/89122] bad fix-it hint for FLT_MAX when is included

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89122 --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm --- Author: dmalcolm Date: Thu Jan 31 18:09:29 2019 New Revision: 268426 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268426&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Fix bogus fix-it for FLT_MAX (PR c/89122) PR c/89122 reports that we e

[Bug debug/87295] [8 Regression][early debug] ICE with -ffat-lto-objects -fdebug-types-section -g

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87295 --- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka --- It seems that this breaks debug-types-sections w/o LTO as well now. ./xgcc -B ./ -O2 -g ~/tramp3d-v44.ii -fdebug-types-section /aux/hubicka/tramp3d-v4b.cpp:56088:1: internal compiler error: in build_abbrev_tabl

[Bug rtl-optimization/88596] [9 Regression] ICE: Maximum number of LRA assignment passes is achieved (30)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88596 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug debug/87451] FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451 --- Comment #11 from Steve Ellcey --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10) > (In reply to Steve Ellcey from comment #9) > Looks like that's because of different expected comment characters, > # vs. // in your file. The pattern for the

[Bug d/88150] Use sections_elf_shared.d on Solaris

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88150 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added CC||code at dawg dot eu, |

[Bug target/88917] [8/9 Regression] Error: can't resolve `.text' {.text section} - `.LCFI2' {.text.unlikely section} with -fno-dwarf2-cfi-asm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88917 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 fro

[Bug d/87864] libdruntime doesn't link with /bin/ld before Solaris 11.4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87864 Johannes Pfau changed: What|Removed |Added CC||johannespfau at gmail dot com --- Commen

[Bug tree-optimization/89143] New: [9 Regression] comparison of abs(i) against excessive constant less than UXXX_MAX no longer folded

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89143 Bug ID: 89143 Summary: [9 Regression] comparison of abs(i) against excessive constant less than UXXX_MAX no longer folded Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/89143] [9 Regression] comparison of abs(i) against excessive constant less than UXXX_MAX no longer folded

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89143 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Known to work|

[Bug c/89127] missing -Wtype-limits for trivially false expressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89127 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- I see what you mean. It might perhaps be useful to mention the bigint rule of thumb in the manual. At the same time, the warning still doesn't work even under this restricted interpretation. For example, in

[Bug target/88917] [8/9 Regression] Error: can't resolve `.text' {.text section} - `.LCFI2' {.text.unlikely section} with -fno-dwarf2-cfi-asm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88917 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/89134] A missing optimization opportunity for a simple branch in loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/89144] New: GCC emits undefined references when a constexpr initializer_list appears in a template function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89144 Bug ID: 89144 Summary: GCC emits undefined references when a constexpr initializer_list appears in a template function Product: gcc Version: 8.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug lto/89084] [9 Regression] ICE in get_partitioning_class, at symtab.c:1892

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89125 --- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to kargl from comment #6) > Checking with FreeBSD developers on C99 compliance. The answer is 'no'. FreeBSD's C runtime libraries (libc+libm) are not fully C99 complaint. It is a shame

[Bug lto/89084] [9 Regression] ICE in get_partitioning_class, at symtab.c:1892

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89084 --- Comment #2 from David Malcolm --- Fails this assertion: 1892 gcc_checking_assert (vnode->definition); (gdb) p vnode $3 =

[Bug tree-optimization/89143] [9 Regression] comparison of abs(i) against excessive constant less than UXXX_MAX no longer folded

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89143 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/88296] [9 Regression] Infinite loop in lra_split_hard_reg_for

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88296 --- Comment #5 from Vladimir Makarov --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > for Vlad the question > is just whether r266862 is a real fix or just made it latent. Given that > both are IRA costs changes, I assume it is a real fix. I'v

  1   2   >