[Bug target/65671] Assembly failure (invalid register operand) with -O3 -mavx512vl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65671 --- Comment #3 from Kirill Yukhin --- Author: kyukhin Date: Thu Apr 9 21:37:28 2015 New Revision: 221963 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221963&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/65671 gcc/ * config/i386/sse.md: Generate vextract32x

[Bug tree-optimization/65724] __builtin_object_size difference for C and C++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65724 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to xur from comment #2) > Do you mean the result of 0 in g++ is intentional? Yes. > But I'm not quite understand the relation with _FORTIFY_SOURCE=2. This > macro does not seem to be check in tree

[Bug tree-optimization/65709] [5 Regression] Bad code for LZ4 decompression with -O3 on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Yann Collet from comment #9) > Looking at the assembler generated, we see that GCC generates a MOVDQA > instruction for it. > > movdqa (%rdi,%rax,1),%xmm0 > > $rdi=0x7fffea4b53e6 > > $rax=0x0 >

[Bug tree-optimization/65724] __builtin_object_size difference for C and C++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65724 --- Comment #2 from xur at google dot com --- Do you mean the result of 0 in g++ is intentional? But I'm not quite understand the relation with _FORTIFY_SOURCE=2. This macro does not seem to be check in tree-objsz pass. In other words, if I unset

[Bug tree-optimization/65724] __builtin_object_size difference for C and C++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65724 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug tree-optimization/65709] [5 Regression] Bad code for LZ4 decompression with -O3 on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709 Yann Collet changed: What|Removed |Added CC||yann.collet.73 at gmail dot com --- Commen

[Bug libstdc++/65723] uniform_real_distribution isn't uniform.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65723 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > I think this is WONTFIX. If you use from=0, to=2 then it works fine ... including the a <= x < b requirement

[Bug libstdc++/65723] uniform_real_distribution isn't uniform.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65723 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- I think this is WONTFIX. If you use from=0, to=2 then it works fine, so use those as the distribution parameters and then add 0x1p52 to the result.

[Bug c++/65690] [5 Regression] typedef alignment lost since r219705

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65690 --- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Thu Apr 9 20:11:44 2015 New Revision: 221960 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221960&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/65690 * tree.c (cp_build_qualified_type_real): Copy TYPE_

[Bug jit/65691] libgccjit documentation typo in gcc_jit_context_one

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65691 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/57032] [4.9/5 Regression]: internal compiler error: Max. number of generated reload insns per insn is achieved (90)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57032 --- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #12) > this problem can also be triggered by a cross from x86_64-linux-gnu. (gdb) f 1 #1 0x008d5315 in lra_constraints (first_p=true) at /home/uros/gcc-svn/trun

[Bug jit/65691] libgccjit documentation typo in gcc_jit_context_one

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65691 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- Author: dmalcolm Date: Thu Apr 9 19:54:49 2015 New Revision: 221959 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221959&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR jit/65691: Fix copy&paste error in docs gcc/jit/ChangeLog: PR j

[Bug rtl-optimization/57032] [4.9/5 Regression]: internal compiler error: Max. number of generated reload insns per insn is achieved (90)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57032 --- Comment #12 from Uroš Bizjak --- Created attachment 35282 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35282&action=edit Preprocessed source for QImode subreg reload problem $ /space/uros/gcc-build-nobwx/gcc/cc1 -O2 -quiet team.i /sp

[Bug tree-optimization/65709] [5 Regression] Bad code for LZ4 decompression with -O3 on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Apr 9 19:51:08 2015 New Revision: 221958 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221958&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/65709 * ubsan.c (instrument_mem_ref): Use TRE

[Bug rtl-optimization/57032] [4.9/5 Regression]: internal compiler error: Max. number of generated reload insns per insn is achieved (90)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57032 --- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak --- Created attachment 35281 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35281&action=edit WIP patch (fixes "Q" constraint)

[Bug target/65710] [5 Regression] Thumb1 ICE caused by no register to spill

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65710 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/57032] [4.9/5 Regression]: internal compiler error: Max. number of generated reload insns per insn is achieved (90)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57032 --- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #9) > I think all of the bits touching reload internals stems > from the non-existence of define_memory_constraint when > the port was first written. > > I suspect

[Bug ipa/65701] r221530 makes 187.facerec drop with -Ofast -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65701 --- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka --- Also: (talos4)$ sh compile -fno-tree-sra real0m52.668s user0m52.365s sys 0m0.348s So it indeed looks like issue related to either vectorizer getting too fancy with prior SRA or simply an registe

[Bug target/65710] [5 Regression] Thumb1 ICE caused by no register to spill

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65710 --- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov --- Author: vmakarov Date: Thu Apr 9 19:42:24 2015 New Revision: 221957 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221957&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-04-09 Vladimir Makarov PR target/65710 * lra-int.h

[Bug target/65710] [5 Regression] Thumb1 ICE caused by no register to spill

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65710 --- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov --- Author: vmakarov Date: Thu Apr 9 19:40:09 2015 New Revision: 221956 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221956&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-04-09 Vladimir Makarov PR target/65710 * lra-int.h

[Bug ipa/65701] r221530 makes 187.facerec drop with -Ofast -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65701 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenther at suse dot de,

[Bug fortran/56852] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] ICE on invalid: "Bad array reference" for an undeclared loop variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56852 --- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas --- Author: pault Date: Thu Apr 9 19:37:57 2015 New Revision: 221955 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221955&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2013-04-09 Paul Thomas PR fortran/56852 * primary.c (gfc_variabl

[Bug middle-end/55035] reload1.c:3766:41: error: ‘orig_dup[0]’ may be used uninitialized in this function (for fr30, microblaze, moxie, rl78)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55035 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2014-07-27 00:00:00 |2015-4-9 CC|

[Bug c++/59766] c++1y: declaring friend function with 'auto' return type deduction is rejected with bogus reason

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59766 --- Comment #9 from David Krauss --- I didn't send it to gcc-patches. It's never been necessary for me before. I suppose I can collect the examples here into a testcase file. In the meantime, anyone else is free to take charge and submit it on th

[Bug tree-optimization/65724] New: __builtin_object_size difference for C and C++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65724 Bug ID: 65724 Summary: __builtin_object_size difference for C and C++ Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug libstdc++/65723] New: uniform_real_distribution isn't uniform.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65723 Bug ID: 65723 Summary: uniform_real_distribution isn't uniform. Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstd

[Bug middle-end/65554] [5 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65554 --- Comment #15 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Thu Apr 9 18:30:34 2015 New Revision: 221954 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221954&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR middle-end/65554 * gimple-fold.c (gimple_fold_builtin_memor

[Bug middle-end/65554] [5 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65554 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ipa/65722] [5 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected function_decl, have var_decl in equals_wpa, at ipa-icf.c:1679 with -fipa-icf -fno-rtti

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65722 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug ipa/65701] r221530 makes 187.facerec drop with -Ofast -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65701 --- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka --- To me it seems like more inlining enales us to SRA array descriptor that in turn enables vectorizer to vectorize differently and slow down the code?

[Bug ipa/65722] New: [5 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected function_decl, have var_decl in equals_wpa, at ipa-icf.c:1679 with -fipa-icf -fno-rtti

onfigure --enable-checking=yes,rtl,df --enable-languages=c,c++,lto,fortran --prefix=/mnt/svn/gcc-trunk/binary-221940-lto-fortran-checking-yes-rtl-df/ --without-cloog --without-ppl Thread model: posix gcc version 5.0.0 20150409 (experimental) (GCC) Marking as regression since "-O2 -fno-rtti" triggers the issue.

[Bug ipa/65701] r221530 makes 187.facerec drop with -Ofast -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65701 --- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka --- With spaces removed to be readable > > 1.11 ???3682: mov0x60(%rsp),%rdx > 9.32 ???3687:?vmovss (%rax,%r12,2),%xmm5 > 1.44 ??? ??? vmovss (%rax),%xmm6 > 4.46 ??? ??? inc%rdi >

[Bug ipa/65701] r221530 makes 187.facerec drop with -Ofast -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65701 --- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka --- OK, and setting --param large-function-insns=1000 gets the performance then. The key seems to be in not inlining too much into main. The hotspot change from: 1.11 �3682: mov0x60(%rsp),%rdx

[Bug ipa/65701] r221530 makes 187.facerec drop with -Ofast -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65701 --- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka --- Strenghtening the wrapper heuristics: Index: ipa-inline.c === --- ipa-inline.c(revision 221909) +++ ipa-inline.c(working copy) @@

[Bug rtl-optimization/57032] [4.9/5 Regression]: internal compiler error: Max. number of generated reload insns per insn is achieved (90)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57032 --- Comment #9 from Richard Henderson --- I think all of the bits touching reload internals stems from the non-existence of define_memory_constraint when the port was first written. I suspect that this is fixable with nothing more than (define_

[Bug c++/65721] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] Internal compiler error segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65721 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/65473] Including does not define __GLIBCXX__

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65473 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- But there's no such thing as a detection macro in the standard, so it's not going to talk about where they belong.

[Bug c++/65721] New: Internal compiler error segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65721 Bug ID: 65721 Summary: Internal compiler error segmentation fault Product: gcc Version: 4.8.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c/65716] Integral promotion wrong with arm version

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65716 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug libstdc++/65473] Including does not define __GLIBCXX__

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65473 --- Comment #4 from Louis Dionne --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3) > (In reply to Louis Dionne from comment #2) > > Does the standard specify which headers should define those macros? > > Of course not, __GLIBCXX__ is not specifi

[Bug rtl-optimization/65693] [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE in assign_by_spills, at lra-assigns.c:1419

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693 Gianfranco changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/65670] [5 Regression] missing libstdc++ symbols on powerpc64le-linux-gnu and arm-linux-gnueabi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65670 --- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt --- OK. Yes, only new symbols except for those two rogue TLS symbols that I'll remove.

[Bug c++/64521] [4.9/5 Regression] ICE with -frepo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64521 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marbacz at gmail dot com --- Comment #

[Bug c++/65720] ICE with g++ 4.9.2 -frepo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65720 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/65720] ICE with g++ 4.9.2 -frepo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65720 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- N.B. there is no good reason to use -frepo in 2015.

[Bug c++/65720] New: ICE with g++ 4.9.2 -frepo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65720 Bug ID: 65720 Summary: ICE with g++ 4.9.2 -frepo Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee:

[Bug libstdc++/65473] Including does not define __GLIBCXX__

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65473 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Louis Dionne from comment #2) > Does the standard specify which headers should define those macros? Of course not, __GLIBCXX__ is not specified by the standard at all. > If not, > then it's

[Bug c++/65719] New: Link error with constexpr variable template

fixes the problem too. My version of GCC: › ~/code/gcc5/bin/g++ --version g++ (GCC) 5.0.0 20150409 (experimental) Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A

[Bug libstdc++/65714] shared_ptr::reset(p) blows a static_assertion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/65693] [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE in assign_by_spills, at lra-assigns.c:1419

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||5.0 Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 Regres

[Bug middle-end/65554] [5 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65554 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Component|c++

[Bug target/38629] target-specific parameters for inline heuristics not defined for AVR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38629 --- Comment #8 from Federico Fissore --- I forgot to say: this result came out of avr-gcc 4.8.1 (packaged by Arduino: it's a 4.8.1 with two small patches applied [1]). It uses -Os optimization flag [1] https://github.com/arduino/toolchain-avr/tr

[Bug libstdc++/61217] pop_heap can't guarantee At most 2 * log(last - first) comparisons

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61217 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/61791] [C++11] [constexpr] Additional overloads of std::real should be a constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61791 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/61795] [C++11] return type of std::pow(std::complex, int) should be std::complex

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61795 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/38629] target-specific parameters for inline heuristics not defined for AVR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38629 Federico Fissore changed: What|Removed |Added CC||federico at fsfe dot org --- Comment

[Bug libstdc++/61761] [C++11] std::proj returns incorrect values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61761 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/65670] [5 Regression] missing libstdc++ symbols on powerpc64le-linux-gnu and arm-linux-gnueabi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65670 --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #12) > I've generated the new version for powerpc-linux-gnu. I believe this needs > to be updated identically in powerpc-linux-gnu/baseline_symbols.txt and in > powerp

[Bug target/65670] [5 Regression] missing libstdc++ symbols on powerpc64le-linux-gnu and arm-linux-gnueabi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65670 --- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt --- I've generated the new version for powerpc-linux-gnu. I believe this needs to be updated identically in powerpc-linux-gnu/baseline_symbols.txt and in powerpc64-linux-gnu/32/baseline_symbols.txt. Is that cor

[Bug lto/65718] g++.dg/lto/pr65276 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65718 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.0

[Bug lto/65718] New: g++.dg/lto/pr65276 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65718 Bug ID: 65718 Summary: g++.dg/lto/pr65276 FAILs Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: lto Assignee: un

[Bug go/65717] New: 64-bit runtime FAILs with 32-bit compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65717 Bug ID: 65717 Summary: 64-bit runtime FAILs with 32-bit compiler Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: go

[Bug go/65717] 64-bit runtime FAILs with 32-bit compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65717 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.0

[Bug c/65716] New: Integral promotion wrong with arm version

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65716 Bug ID: 65716 Summary: Integral promotion wrong with arm version Product: gcc Version: 4.6.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug libstdc++/60422] headers should give a diagnostic when included directly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60422 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/65715] Aligned attribute C++ issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65715 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.0 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek -

[Bug c++/65690] [5 Regression] typedef alignment lost since r219705

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65690 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/65715] New: Aligned attribute C++ issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65715 Bug ID: 65715 Summary: Aligned attribute C++ issues Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: wrong-code Severity: normal Priority: P3 Co

[Bug c++/65715] Aligned attribute C++ issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65715 Bug 65715 depends on bug 65690, which changed state. Bug 65690 Summary: [5 Regression] typedef alignment lost since r219705 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65690 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/65690] [5 Regression] typedef alignment lost since r219705

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65690 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Apr 9 15:06:56 2015 New Revision: 221952 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221952&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/65690 * tree.c (build_cplus_array_type): Layout type befor

[Bug libstdc++/59167] Add a specialization for std::hash<__gnu_debug::string>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59167 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/58395] Undefined behavior vs. exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58395 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/58138] #include gives warning: macro "__code_model_small__" is not used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58138 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/58153] unordered_multimap::erase(iterator) is not constant-time when many entries have the same key

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58153 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/57684] [c++11] Lambda is not convertible to std::function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57684 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug rtl-optimization/65693] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] ICE in assign_by_spills, at lra-assigns.c:1419

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65693 --- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool --- Author: segher Date: Thu Apr 9 14:37:14 2015 New Revision: 221951 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221951&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR rtl-optimization/65693 * combine.c (is_parallel_of_n_reg

[Bug libstdc++/48891] std functions conflicts with C functions when building with c++0x support (and using namespace std)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48891 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/46151] namespace versioning holes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46151 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/31247] std::vector::iterator::value_type is accessible

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31247 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/65714] New: shared_ptr::reset(p) blows a static_assertion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65714 Bug ID: 65714 Summary: shared_ptr::reset(p) blows a static_assertion Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: lib

[Bug target/65697] __atomic memory barriers not strong enough for __sync builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697 --- Comment #11 from Matthew Wahab --- (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #10) > (In reply to Matthew Wahab from comment #7) > > > Ok, my point was just that an __sync operation has a stronger barrier that > > an __atomic operation. > > >

[Bug preprocessor/65713] C Preprocessor generates invalid output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65713 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/42172] inefficient bit fields assignments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42172 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug preprocessor/65713] C Preprocessor generates invalid output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65713 --- Comment #4 from Armin K. --- Yes, that works. I'll take it to libgpg-error upstream. Thanks for the quick response and please close this bug.

[Bug preprocessor/65713] C Preprocessor generates invalid output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65713 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug preprocessor/65713] C Preprocessor generates invalid output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65713 --- Comment #2 from Armin K. --- Created attachment 35276 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35276&action=edit File used to produce the first two files Two files are generated with gcc -E _mkerrcodes.h

[Bug preprocessor/65713] C Preprocessor generates invalid output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65713 --- Comment #1 from Armin K. --- Created attachment 35275 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35275&action=edit gcc 5.0.0 snapshot output

[Bug preprocessor/65713] New: C Preprocessor generates invalid output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65713 Bug ID: 65713 Summary: C Preprocessor generates invalid output Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: blocker Priority: P3 Component: preprocess

[Bug pch/65550] [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE (segfault) with pch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65550 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Apr 9 13:37:53 2015 New Revision: 221949 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221949&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-04-09 Richard Biener PR pch/65550 * files.c (pch_open_

[Bug pch/65550] [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE (segfault) with pch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65550 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||5.0 Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 Regre

[Bug c/65712] New: pthread_self prints wrong result when used with ucontext

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65712 Bug ID: 65712 Summary: pthread_self prints wrong result when used with ucontext Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prior

[Bug fortran/65684] Wrong error message when writing to a string

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65684 --- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle --- I have another idea in mind, however I see what your aiming for. I sense some frustration over personal preferences and wording and such. There is no rush here, since we have to wait for next stage 1 regard

[Bug fortran/65089] FAIL: gfortran.dg/io_real_boz(2|_[45]).f90 when tested with -fsanitize=address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65089 --- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9) > (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #8) > > True, fortran strings are not generally NULL terminated. However, for > > internal representation between Fronte

[Bug target/65697] __atomic memory barriers not strong enough for __sync builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697 --- Comment #10 from Andrew Macleod --- (In reply to Matthew Wahab from comment #7) > (In reply to torvald from comment #5) > > (In reply to Matthew Wahab from comment #0) > > > > I don't think that's a precise characterization. The difference

[Bug target/65296] [avr] fix various issues with specs file generation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65296 --- Comment #8 from Georg-Johann Lay --- Author: gjl Date: Thu Apr 9 11:37:11 2015 New Revision: 221947 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221947&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/65296 * config/avr/driver-avr.c (avr_devicespecs_file):

[Bug target/65351] [5 Regression] libiberty's pic version contains non-pic code on m32 darwin; causes bootstrap fail building libcc1.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65351 --- Comment #31 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #30) > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #29) > > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #27) > > > Created attachment 35255 [details] > > > > > checking on powerpc-

[Bug target/65697] __atomic memory barriers not strong enough for __sync builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697 --- Comment #9 from Matthew Wahab --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8) > (In reply to Matthew Wahab from comment #7) > > I agree that this wouldn't affect valid C11 code (because of data-races) but > > my understanding is that __sync

[Bug libstdc++/65147] alignment of std::atomic object is not correct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147 --- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely --- Alexey, your testcases in comment 0 and comment 7 give the right results now.

[Bug libstdc++/65147] alignment of std::atomic object is not correct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147 --- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Apr 9 11:15:44 2015 New Revision: 221945 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221945&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-04-09 Jonathan Wakely Richard Henderson PR libstd

[Bug target/65697] __atomic memory barriers not strong enough for __sync builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Matthew Wahab from comment #7) > I agree that this wouldn't affect valid C11 code (because of data-races) but > my understanding is that __sync builtins don't require a C11 model. The You say

  1   2   >