[Bug libstdc++/91653] ostream::operator<<(streambuf*) should fail the ostream when write output stream error but not

2019-09-10 Thread yhliang86 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91653 --- Comment #4 from yinghui --- (In reply to TC from comment #3) > Looks NAD to me. > > http://eel.is/c++draft/ostream.inserters#8.2 doesn't say that we set any bit > in that case. Contrast with http://eel.is/c++draft/ostream.unformatted#3 and

[Bug c/91733] New: No longer treat carriage return as an end-of-line

2019-09-10 Thread akim.demaille at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91733 Bug ID: 91733 Summary: No longer treat carriage return as an end-of-line Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug middle-end/91680] Integer promotion quirk prevents efficient power of 2 division

2019-09-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91680 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/91705] [9/10 Regression] operator++ broken in constexpr floating point code

2019-09-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91705 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug libstdc++/91719] New: gcc compiles seq_cst store on x86-64 differently from clang/icc

2019-09-10 Thread oliver.gier...@b-tu.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91719 Bug ID: 91719 Summary: gcc compiles seq_cst store on x86-64 differently from clang/icc Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/91719] gcc compiles seq_cst store on x86-64 differently from clang/icc

2019-09-10 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91719 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Surely this is a compiler bug not libstdc++ bug, since std::atomic just uses the __atomic built-in function.

[Bug d/91628] libdruntime uses glibc internal symbol on s390

2019-09-10 Thread rdapp at linux dot ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91628 --- Comment #13 from rdapp at linux dot ibm.com --- Created attachment 46859 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46859=edit __tls_get_offset in separate .S files As there were no further remarks as to which version is preferred

[Bug c/91732] New: Adding omp simd pragma prevents vectorization

2019-09-10 Thread jed at 59A2 dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91732 Bug ID: 91732 Summary: Adding omp simd pragma prevents vectorization Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug target/91719] gcc compiles seq_cst store on x86-64 differently from clang/icc

2019-09-10 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91719 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/89188] ICE in pre_and_rev_post_order_compute, at cfganal.c:1055

2019-09-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89188 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- I guess what is important, does the testcase also ICE with older 7.x branch snapshots? If yes, this most likely means just that there is some another bug in 7.x, but it wouldn't be a regression. So, we

[Bug target/91720] [10 Regression] wrong code with -Og -fno-forward-propagate -frerun-cse-after-loop -fno-tree-fre

2019-09-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91720 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- I think this has been introduced in PR59461 change and is contrary to what is documented: "The high-order bits of rvalues are defined in the following circumstances: @itemize @item @code{subreg}s of

[Bug target/91722] New: gcc generates sub-optimal assembly when AVX instructions are used.

2019-09-10 Thread maxim.yegorushkin at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91722 Bug ID: 91722 Summary: gcc generates sub-optimal assembly when AVX instructions are used. Product: gcc Version: 9.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/91729] New: [10 Regression] ICE in gfc_match_select_rank, at fortran/match.c:6586

2019-09-10 Thread gs...@t-online.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91729 Bug ID: 91729 Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in gfc_match_select_rank, at fortran/match.c:6586 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/91725] 275587[10 Regression] ICE in get_nonzero_bits starting with r275587

2019-09-10 Thread glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91725 --- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > gcc10-pr91725.patch An alternative (I don't claim it is better) would be to make get_nonzero_bits conservatively return -1 on unknown input, like the comment

[Bug middle-end/91725] 275587[10 Regression] ICE in get_nonzero_bits starting with r275587

2019-09-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91725 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 46866 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46866=edit gcc10-pr91725.patch Yet another untested patch, tree_nonzero_bits is something that already does what you write

[Bug c++/91141] Can't use class members inside conditional noexcept specifier

2019-09-10 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91141 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.0 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan

[Bug target/91683] ICE: SIGSEGV at -O when compiling for riscv64

2019-09-10 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91683 --- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool --- > Anyway, fixing it properly likely requires quite some work. Combine should not change any insns in place. It should create *new* insns. It can always keep those in some temporary place, only

[Bug debug/91507] wrong debug for completed array with previous incomplete declaration

2019-09-10 Thread vries at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91507 --- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries --- patch submitted: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-09/msg00161.html

[Bug tree-optimization/91723] New: builtin fma is not optimized or vectorized as *+

2019-09-10 Thread nsz at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91723 Bug ID: 91723 Summary: builtin fma is not optimized or vectorized as *+ Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/91289] powerpc-eabi: Usage of -fstack-limit-symbol leads to internal compiler error during RTL pass

2019-09-10 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91289 --- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool --- Thanks for testing!

[Bug tree-optimization/91723] [9/10 Regression] builtin fma is not optimized or vectorized as *+

2019-09-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91723 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/91723] [9/10 Regression] builtin fma is not optimized or vectorized as *+

2019-09-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91723 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 46865 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46865=edit gcc10-pr91723.patch Untested fix.

[Bug fortran/91728] New: Accepts array with wrong shape in a structure constructor

2019-09-10 Thread gs...@t-online.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91728 Bug ID: 91728 Summary: Accepts array with wrong shape in a structure constructor Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/91683] ICE: SIGSEGV at -O when compiling for riscv64

2019-09-10 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91683 --- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On September 10, 2019 8:11:35 PM GMT+02:00, "wilson at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91683 > >--- Comment #16 from Jim Wilson --- >(In reply to

[Bug other/91730] New: [10 regression] r275518 causes 3 verification errors in the cpu 2006 test suite

2019-09-10 Thread seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91730 Bug ID: 91730 Summary: [10 regression] r275518 causes 3 verification errors in the cpu 2006 test suite Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/91705] [9 Regression] operator++ broken in constexpr floating point code

2019-09-10 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91705 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[9/10 Regression] |[9 Regression] operator++

[Bug c++/91705] [9/10 Regression] operator++ broken in constexpr floating point code

2019-09-10 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91705 --- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Tue Sep 10 21:04:33 2019 New Revision: 275613 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275613=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/91705 - constexpr evaluation rejects ++/-- on floats. *

[Bug fortran/91727] New: ICE in conformable_arrays, at fortran/resolve.c:7490

2019-09-10 Thread gs...@t-online.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91727 Bug ID: 91727 Summary: ICE in conformable_arrays, at fortran/resolve.c:7490 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/91683] ICE: SIGSEGV at -O when compiling for riscv64

2019-09-10 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91683 --- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool --- I'll do a patch to prohibit gen_reg_rtx inside combine, btw... Let's see how far that goes.

[Bug middle-end/91709] Missed optimization for multiplication on 1.5 and 1.25

2019-09-10 Thread joseph at codesourcery dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91709 --- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- See the C17 standard, Annex F.4 "Floating to integer conversion": "Otherwise, if the floating value is infinite or NaN or if the integral part of the floating value exceeds the range of

[Bug go/91621] libgo/mksysinfo.sh: please avoid test ==

2019-09-10 Thread ian at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91621 --- Comment #2 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: ian Date: Tue Sep 10 20:32:42 2019 New Revision: 275609 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275609=gcc=rev Log: PR go/91621 mksysinfo: change test == to test = Fixes

[Bug go/91621] libgo/mksysinfo.sh: please avoid test ==

2019-09-10 Thread ian at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91621 --- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: ian Date: Tue Sep 10 20:32:20 2019 New Revision: 275608 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275608=gcc=rev Log: PR go/91621 mksysinfo: change test == to test = Fixes

[Bug go/91621] libgo/mksysinfo.sh: please avoid test ==

2019-09-10 Thread ian at airs dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91621 Ian Lance Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/91719] gcc compiles seq_cst store on x86-64 differently from clang/icc

2019-09-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91719 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Tried: unsigned int a; int main () { for (int i = 0; i < 1; i++) __atomic_store_n (, i, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST); return 0; } and: unsigned int a; int main () { for (int i = 0; i < 1;

[Bug target/82182] m68k slow code: u16/u8 division calls divsi3

2019-09-10 Thread djipi.mari at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82182 Jean-Paul Mari changed: What|Removed |Added CC||djipi.mari at gmail dot com ---

[Bug target/91719] gcc compiles seq_cst store on x86-64 differently from clang/icc

2019-09-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91719 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[ Notification ID : #2123803340 ] Sign-in on a new environment.

2019-09-10 Thread support
Dear gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, lsFSοme7YvhL9one logged in to 7668yοurlsF AρρIe ID lsFFrοmwGmkx5GFZE a diffrent lsFlοcatіοn country and IP address : Date and Time        : 9/10/2019 11:34:19 AM 22872Brο7YvhL9wserwGmkx5GFZE  

[Bug target/91720] [10 Regression] wrong code with -Og -fno-forward-propagate -frerun-cse-after-loop -fno-tree-fre

2019-09-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91720 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/91720] [10 Regression] wrong code with -Og -fno-forward-propagate -frerun-cse-after-loop -fno-tree-fre

2019-09-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91720 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- If W_O_R with load_extend_op (QImode) == ZERO_EXTEND says that the upper bits are all clear, then (insn 34 33 35 (set (reg:QI 15 a5 [orig:94 iftmp.0_7 ] [94]) (const_int -128 [0xff80]))

[Bug target/91719] gcc compiles seq_cst store on x86-64 differently from clang/icc

2019-09-10 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91719 --- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak --- Created attachment 46861 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46861=edit Proposed patch that introduces use_xchg_for_atomic_store The patch introduces use_xchg_for_atomic_store and enables it

[Bug target/89188] ICE in pre_and_rev_post_order_compute, at cfganal.c:1055

2019-09-10 Thread clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89188 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/91721] New: Missed optimization for checking nan and comparison

2019-09-10 Thread antoshkka at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91721 Bug ID: 91721 Summary: Missed optimization for checking nan and comparison Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug target/89188] ICE in pre_and_rev_post_order_compute, at cfganal.c:1055

2019-09-10 Thread clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89188 --- Comment #9 from Christophe Lyon --- Good point, I just checked with gcc-linaro-7.4.1-2019.02-x86_64_aarch64-linux-gnu, and it does ICE.

[Bug target/91275] __builtin_crypto_vpmsumd gives different results -O[123] vs -O0

2019-09-10 Thread wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91275 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug target/91289] powerpc-eabi: Usage of -fstack-limit-symbol leads to internal compiler error during RTL pass

2019-09-10 Thread amodra at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91289 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amodra at gmail dot com --- Comment #7

[Bug target/91719] gcc compiles seq_cst store on x86-64 differently from clang/icc

2019-09-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91719 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- We do that if mfence isn't supported: /* For seq-cst stores, when we lack MFENCE, use XCHG. */ if (is_mm_seq_cst (model) && !(TARGET_64BIT || TARGET_SSE2)) { emit_insn

[Bug target/91719] gcc compiles seq_cst store on x86-64 differently from clang/icc

2019-09-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91719 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug target/91720] [10 Regression] wrong code with -Og -fno-forward-propagate -frerun-cse-after-loop -fno-tree-fre

2019-09-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91720 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Looks very similar to PR89795 on arm.

[Bug target/91289] powerpc-eabi: Usage of -fstack-limit-symbol leads to internal compiler error during RTL pass

2019-09-10 Thread amodra at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91289 --- Comment #8 from Alan Modra --- Ah, no addsi3_carry won't work. You'll need a special version of elf_low that trashes CA.

[Bug target/91708] [10 regression][ARM] Bootstrap fails in gen_movsi, at config/arm/arm.md:5258

2019-09-10 Thread bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91708 --- Comment #12 from Bernd Edlinger --- Created attachment 46863 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46863=edit untested patch That was easy :-) I have been there before...

[Bug target/91708] [10 regression][ARM] Bootstrap fails in gen_movsi, at config/arm/arm.md:5258

2019-09-10 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91708 --- Comment #11 from Wilco --- Created attachment 46862 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46862=edit Reproducer g++ -mcpu=cortex-a57 -mfpu=fp-armv8 out.c -O2 -c reproduces the issue outside of a bootstrap

[Bug target/91720] [10 Regression] wrong code with -Og -fno-forward-propagate -frerun-cse-after-loop -fno-tree-fre

2019-09-10 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91720 --- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool --- Isn't this *exactly* what WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS says is okay to do?

[Bug target/91720] [10 Regression] wrong code with -Og -fno-forward-propagate -frerun-cse-after-loop -fno-tree-fre

2019-09-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91720 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #3) > > So, the bug is either in nonzero_bits that it for the > > WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS and load_extend_op (QImode) == ZERO_EXTEND returns > > 0s in the upper bits,

[Bug target/91719] gcc compiles seq_cst store on x86-64 differently from clang/icc

2019-09-10 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91719 --- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > So, I guess we need to benchmark both and if xchg is beneficial on some > CPUs, use it there guarded by some tuning flag. Yes, my patch assumes that XCHG is

[Bug target/91720] New: [10 Regression] wrong code with -Og -fno-forward-propagate -frerun-cse-after-loop -fno-tree-fre

2019-09-10 Thread zsojka at seznam dot cz
del: posix Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd gcc version 10.0.0 20190910 (experimental) (GCC)

[Bug target/91720] [10 Regression] wrong code with -Og -fno-forward-propagate -frerun-cse-after-loop -fno-tree-fre

2019-09-10 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91720 --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou --- > So, the bug is either in nonzero_bits that it for the > WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS and load_extend_op (QImode) == ZERO_EXTEND returns > 0s in the upper bits, or in > simplify_and_const_int trusting

[Bug c++/91369] Implement P0784R7: constexpr new

2019-09-10 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #2) > > > should we mark them some way and either allow the first > > > cxx_fold_indirect_ref or the above code to change

[Bug c++/91673] [10 Regression] GCC ICE when partially specialising class template on a function-signature type with deduced noexcept qualifier

2019-09-10 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91673 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Tue Sep 10 23:22:37 2019 New Revision: 275617 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275617=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/91673 - ICE with noexcept in alias-declaration. *

[Bug target/91289] powerpc-eabi: Usage of -fstack-limit-symbol leads to internal compiler error during RTL pass

2019-09-10 Thread amodra at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91289 --- Comment #13 from Alan Modra --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #9) > My patch do not clobber r11, that's the point of it :-) Eh, I shouldn't look at patches late at night. Even simple ones.

[Bug fortran/91731] Configure error on building MPICH

2019-09-10 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91731 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 CC|

[Bug c++/91705] [9 Regression] operator++ broken in constexpr floating point code

2019-09-10 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91705 --- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Tue Sep 10 22:39:46 2019 New Revision: 275615 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275615=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/91705 - constexpr evaluation rejects ++/-- on floats. *

[Bug c++/91673] [10 Regression] GCC ICE when partially specialising class template on a function-signature type with deduced noexcept qualifier

2019-09-10 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91673 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/91705] [9 Regression] operator++ broken in constexpr floating point code

2019-09-10 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91705 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/91720] [10 Regression] wrong code with -Og -fno-forward-propagate -frerun-cse-after-loop -fno-tree-fre

2019-09-10 Thread wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91720 Jim Wilson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8

[Bug fortran/91731] New: Configure error on building MPICH

2019-09-10 Thread damian at sourceryinstitute dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91731 Bug ID: 91731 Summary: Configure error on building MPICH Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug c++/91705] [9/10 Regression] operator++ broken in constexpr floating point code

2019-09-10 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91705 --- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek --- Stuff like (int *) 4 is invalid in constexpr, but that's what OFFSET can be. Comes from 6442 inc = cp_convert (argtype, inc, complain); in cp_build_unary_op. E.g., int array[4]; constexpr int

[Bug tree-optimization/91723] [9/10 Regression] builtin fma is not optimized or vectorized as *+

2019-09-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91723 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug lto/91724] New: [8 Regression] profiled lto bootstrap fails on arm-linux-gnueabihf

2019-09-10 Thread doko at debian dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91724 Bug ID: 91724 Summary: [8 Regression] profiled lto bootstrap fails on arm-linux-gnueabihf Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/91141] Can't use class members inside conditional noexcept specifier

2019-09-10 Thread brickmen75 at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91141 Oleg Fatkhiev changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/91725] 275587[10 Regression] ICE in get_nonzero_bits starting with r275587

2019-09-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91725 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 46864 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46864=edit gcc10-pr91725.patch Untested fix.

[Bug target/91289] powerpc-eabi: Usage of -fstack-limit-symbol leads to internal compiler error during RTL pass

2019-09-10 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91289 --- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool --- The prologue is not necessarily inserted as the first bb, so it's not clear to me that CA is never live there. The code copying r11 to r0, and back, is removed by the usual optimisations btw, in all

[Bug target/91708] [10 regression][ARM] Bootstrap fails in gen_movsi, at config/arm/arm.md:5258

2019-09-10 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91708 --- Comment #13 from Wilco --- (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #12) > Created attachment 46863 [details] > untested patch > > That was easy :-) > I have been there before... Great! That bootstraps successfully now.

[Bug tree-optimization/91723] [9/10 Regression] builtin fma is not optimized or vectorized as *+

2019-09-10 Thread amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91723 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug target/91289] powerpc-eabi: Usage of -fstack-limit-symbol leads to internal compiler error during RTL pass

2019-09-10 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91289 --- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool --- My patch do not clobber r11, that's the point of it :-)

[Bug c++/91705] [9/10 Regression] operator++ broken in constexpr floating point code

2019-09-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91705 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Ah, you're right. Perhaps it could be done by doing the constexpr evaluation only if not CONSTANT_CLASS_P (offset) or similar, TREE_CONSTANT is probably not good enough as that is likely set already on the

[Bug target/91289] powerpc-eabi: Usage of -fstack-limit-symbol leads to internal compiler error during RTL pass

2019-09-10 Thread philipp.spilger at kip dot uni-heidelberg.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91289 --- Comment #11 from Philipp Spilger --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #6) > Created attachment 46853 [details] > Proposed patch > > Could you try this patch? The proposed patch works back-ported to 8.1 (residing in rs6000.c

[Bug target/91722] gcc generates sub-optimal assembly when AVX instructions are used.

2019-09-10 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91722 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu --- GCC 10 generates: .globl _Z11copysign_psDv8_fS_ .type _Z11copysign_psDv8_fS_, @function _Z11copysign_psDv8_fS_: .LFB5339: .cfi_startproc vmovaps %ymm0, %ymm2

[Bug middle-end/91725] New: 275587[10 Regression] ICE in get_nonzero_bits starting with r275587

2019-09-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91725 Bug ID: 91725 Summary: 275587[10 Regression] ICE in get_nonzero_bits starting with r275587 Product: gcc Version: 9.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/91725] 275587[10 Regression] ICE in get_nonzero_bits starting with r275587

2019-09-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91725 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/91683] ICE: SIGSEGV at -O when compiling for riscv64

2019-09-10 Thread wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91683 --- Comment #16 from Jim Wilson --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #15) > I still don't understand. The rtx are not relocated. The only thing is the > address of the slot of the regno to rtx map. I have a debug session in comment 6

[Bug middle-end/91708] [10 regression][ARM] Bootstrap fails in gen_movsi, at config/arm/arm.md:5258

2019-09-10 Thread edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91708 Bernd Edlinger changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/91726] New: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_array_ref, at fortran/trans-array.c:3612

2019-09-10 Thread gs...@t-online.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91726 Bug ID: 91726 Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_array_ref, at fortran/trans-array.c:3612 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug middle-end/91680] Integer promotion quirk prevents efficient power of 2 division

2019-09-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91680 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Sep 10 08:15:46 2019 New Revision: 275587 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275587=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/91680 * match.pd ((A / (1 << B)) -> (A >> B)): Allow

[Bug libstdc++/91711] 23_containers/span/get_neg.cc fails on arm

2019-09-10 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91711 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/91711] 23_containers/span/get_neg.cc fails on arm

2019-09-10 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91711 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Tue Sep 10 07:35:40 2019 New Revision: 275563 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275563=gcc=rev Log: PR libstdc++/91711 fix failing test PR libstdc++/91711 *

[Bug c++/85282] CWG 727 (full specialization in non-namespace scope)

2019-09-10 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85282 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- https://wg21.link/cwg727 N.B. this is a C++17 feature that does not seem to have been approved as a DR, but Clang supports it in all language modes. Carlo, as an aside, your allocator fails to meet the

[Bug c++/91718] New: Inherited constructors with arrays of objects

2019-09-10 Thread edwin.carlinet at lrde dot epita.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91718 Bug ID: 91718 Summary: Inherited constructors with arrays of objects Product: gcc Version: 9.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/91369] Implement P0784R7: constexpr new

2019-09-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #2) > > should we mark them some way and either allow the first > > cxx_fold_indirect_ref or the above code to change their type the first time > > they are stored? >

[Bug tree-optimization/90387] [9 Regression] __builtin_constant_p and -Warray-bounds warnings

2019-09-10 Thread b.buschinski at googlemail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90387 --- Comment #6 from Bernd Buschinski --- >From the comments I assumed that the fix is kind of trivial but it is not yet in. Is it realistic that it could be fixed in GCC 9.3? Just asking because we are compiling with -Werror and I wonder if I

[Bug target/91683] ICE: SIGSEGV at -O when compiling for riscv64

2019-09-10 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91683 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On September 10, 2019 3:50:46 AM GMT+02:00, "wilson at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91683 > >--- Comment #14 from Jim Wilson --- >> 3) Do we want to

[Bug middle-end/91709] Missed optimization for multiplication on 1.5 and 1.25

2019-09-10 Thread antoshkka at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91709 --- Comment #3 from Antony Polukhin --- (In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #2) > If the result of multiplying by 1.5 is outside the range of the integer > type, the version with multiplication is required to raise the FE_INVALID