[Bug c++/66042] Implicitly converts lvalue to rvalue when returning reference parameter in function template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66042 David Stone changed: What|Removed |Added CC||david at doublewise dot net --- Comment #1

[Bug c++/66042] New: Implicitly converts lvalue to rvalue when returning reference parameter in function template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66042 Bug ID: 66042 Summary: Implicitly converts lvalue to rvalue when returning reference parameter in function template Product: gcc Version: 5.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/66041] New: [6.0 Regression] Matmul ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66041 Bug ID: 66041 Summary: [6.0 Regression] Matmul ICE Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran Assig

[Bug bootstrap/66009] [6 Regression] Bootstrap failure on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66009 --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Hahaha, finally figured out what was going on here. The definition of types_match and single_use violate the C++ ODR in a non-optimizing compilation (ie, then they do not get inlined). There'll be two impl

[Bug middle-end/192] String literals don't obey -fdata-sections

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192 --- Comment #13 from Matt Whitlock --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12) > Would it better to use MD5 checksum on string contents? MD5 would be slower for not much gain in uniqueness (assuming its output is truncated to 32 bits). This applica

[Bug tree-optimization/46029] -ftree-loop-if-convert-stores causes FAIL: libstdc++-v3/testsuite/ext/pb_ds/example/tree_intervals.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46029 --- Comment #5 from Sebastian Pop --- Maybe the patch was not committed because it was not ready before stage3: "GCC 4.6 Stage 3 (starts 2010-11-03)". I will update the patch and resubmit for review.

[Bug fortran/66040] ICE on misplaced sequence in function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66040 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 09:09:57PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- > This appears to be an intentional ICE (although I'm not sure why). > The code in qu

[Bug fortran/37131] inline matmul for small matrix sizes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131 --- Comment #29 from Thomas Koenig --- Further ideas: - Handling of TRANSPOSEd arguments - Temporaries for arguments which are not plain arrays - Remove size<0 checks (the DO loops will do that on their own) - Remove double run-time checks, b

[Bug c++/65966] "sorry, unimplemented: unexpected AST of kind try_block" when initializing a 2D array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65966 Mikhail Maltsev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||maltsevm at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug fortran/66040] ICE on misplaced sequence in function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66040 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- C

[Bug target/65979] Multiple issues in conftest.c prevent build on sh4-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979 --- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- Hi! I did some more tests and it turns out, my current compiler can't even build gcc-4.9 anymore. Inspecting the build log [1] closer hints at problems when the stages 2 and 3 are being compared:

[Bug c/40115] -O2 and higher causes wrong label address calculation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40115 --- Comment #6 from Per Lundberg --- Well, the label is actually in the same function. It just happens to land there on the other thread. I can't really use a function pointer here, since I have no way (at least that I know of) to find out how mu

[Bug c/40115] -O2 and higher causes wrong label address calculation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40115 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- > In my case, I use the address for "jumping" but with indirect jumping > (in the new thread being created). Would you say that this is not supported? yes that is not support is explicitly says it is not sup

[Bug c/40115] -O2 and higher causes wrong label address calculation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40115 Per Lundberg changed: What|Removed |Added CC||perlun at gmail dot com --- Comment #4 fr

[Bug fortran/37131] inline matmul for small matrix sizes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131 --- Comment #28 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Wed May 6 20:23:48 2015 New Revision: 222864 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222864&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-05-06 Thomas Koenig PR fortran/37131 * gfortra

[Bug c++/65966] "sorry, unimplemented: unexpected AST of kind try_block" when initializing a 2D array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65966 --- Comment #1 from Lewis Hyatt --- Hello- I have some additional information that I hope is helpful to look into this. A. Regarding the first testcase, a regression from 4.9, which produces the "sorry, unimplemented" error in 5.1: 1. I forgot

[Bug bootstrap/58476] In top-level configure --disable-static should change default for --with-boot-ldflags

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58476 Michael Deutschmann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||michael at talosis dot ca --- Comm

[Bug fortran/66039] ICE on incomplete parentheses at rewind, flush, endfile, backspace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66039 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|UNCONFIR

[Bug fortran/66040] ICE on misplaced sequence in function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66040 --- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz --- There are more cases for ICEs on misplaced statements in a function. For example : --- real function f() block data end --- real function f() else end --- real function f()

[Bug bootstrap/66022] 4.8.4 build fails with stage 2 and 3 comparison error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66022 --- Comment #1 from James Mason --- Using the same machine and shell script (save changing the version variable from "gcc-4.8.4" to "gcc-4.9.2"), a nearly identical failure occurs: gmake[2]: Entering directory `/opt/BUILD-gcc-4.9.2' gmake[3]: En

[Bug c++/54835] [C++11][DR 1518] Explicit default constructors not respected during copy-list-initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54835 --- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #10) > I read DR 1630 again and cannot follow that conclusion - could you clarify? > It still says "For copy-initialization, the candidate functions are all the > con

[Bug fortran/66040] New: ICE on misplaced sequence in function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66040 Bug ID: 66040 Summary: ICE on misplaced sequence in function Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug fortran/66039] New: ICE on incomplete parentheses at rewind, flush, endfile, backspace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66039 Bug ID: 66039 Summary: ICE on incomplete parentheses at rewind, flush, endfile, backspace Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/66035] [5/6 Regression] gfortran ICE segfault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66035 --- Comment #4 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 35482 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35482&action=edit Candidate patch for latest regressions. This is a candidate patch for trunk, aka 6.0, including all m

[Bug middle-end/192] String literals don't obey -fdata-sections

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192 --- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Matt Whitlock from comment #11) > Created attachment 35479 [details] > put string literals into unique sections when -fmerge-constants > -fdata-sections > > This patch puts each string literal into a (

[Bug bootstrap/66038] SIGSEGV at stage 2 build/genmatch --gimple ../../gcc-5.1.0/gcc/match.pd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038 --- Comment #1 from Douglas Mencken --- $ prev-gcc/xgcc -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=prev-gcc/xgcc Target: powerpc-unknown-darwin Configured with: ../gcc-5.1.0/configure --build=powerpc-unknown-darwin --host=powerpc-unknown-darwin --targe

[Bug bootstrap/66038] New: SIGSEGV at stage 2 build/genmatch --gimple ../../gcc-5.1.0/gcc/match.pd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038 Bug ID: 66038 Summary: SIGSEGV at stage 2 build/genmatch --gimple ../../gcc-5.1.0/gcc/match.pd Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697 --- Comment #52 from Andrew Macleod --- (In reply to mwahab from comment #51) > The mips backend was the only one that stood out as needing some care, > because the way it uses the memory models (e.g. in function > mips_process_sync_loop) is a l

[Bug target/65990] ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2341 (unrecognizable insn) with -mmemcpy-strategy=rep_8byte:-1:noalign -m32 -mtune=btver2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65990 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/65990] ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2341 (unrecognizable insn) with -mmemcpy-strategy=rep_8byte:-1:noalign -m32 -mtune=btver2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65990 --- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak --- Fixed everywhere.

[Bug rtl-optimization/65862] [MIPS] IRA/LRA issue: integers spilled to floating-point registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65862 --- Comment #6 from Matthew Fortune --- (In reply to Robert Suchanek from comment #5) > > I am not sure, that the result code is better as we access memory 3 > > times instead of access to $f20. > > On one hand, yes, it seems good but it's not a

[Bug target/65990] ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2341 (unrecognizable insn) with -mmemcpy-strategy=rep_8byte:-1:noalign -m32 -mtune=btver2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65990 --- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Wed May 6 16:21:07 2015 New Revision: 222859 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222859&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/65990 * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_parse_s

[Bug tree-optimization/66010] [6 Regression] Missed optimization after inlining va_list parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66010 --- Comment #6 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 35480 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35480&action=edit Tentative patch (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5) > apD.1859 = &apD.1844; > > # .MEM_

[Bug target/65990] ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2341 (unrecognizable insn) with -mmemcpy-strategy=rep_8byte:-1:noalign -m32 -mtune=btver2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65990 --- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Wed May 6 16:17:59 2015 New Revision: 222858 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222858&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/65990 * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_parse_s

[Bug rtl-optimization/65862] [MIPS] IRA/LRA issue: integers spilled to floating-point registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65862 --- Comment #5 from Robert Suchanek --- Sorry for late reply, I was on vacation. > The costs are equal if cost of moving general regs to/from fp regs or > memory are equal. So it looks ok to me. > > r218 spilled in IRA is reassigned to a fp re

[Bug libstdc++/59675] -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG asserts to stdout (it should stderr)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59675 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/59161] GDB pretty printers: iterator->reference not printed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59161 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/54303] -fdata-sections -ffunction-sections and -fmerge-constants do not work well together

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54303 --- Comment #16 from Matt Whitlock --- Here's a working solution: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192#c11

[Bug middle-end/192] String literals don't obey -fdata-sections

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192 --- Comment #11 from Matt Whitlock --- Created attachment 35479 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35479&action=edit put string literals into unique sections when -fmerge-constants -fdata-sections This patch puts each string lite

[Bug other/66037] [docs] what is the difference between global_options and global_options_set?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66037 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697 --- Comment #51 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #50) > Created attachment 35478 [details] > implement SYNC flag for memory model > > > Adding the __sync barriers to coretypes.h is the better approach if

[Bug libstdc++/59675] -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG asserts to stdout (it should stderr)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59675 --- Comment #5 from Jan Kratochvil --- gcc-4.9.2-6.fc21.x86_64: gcc-5.1.1-1.fc23.x86_64 #include int main() { __gnu_debug::string s((const char *)0); } g++ -o gcc59675b gcc59675b.C -Wall -g -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG_PEDANTIC ./gcc59675b

[Bug other/66037] [docs] what is the difference between global_options and global_options_set?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66037 --- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- See (whenever an options structure pointer is available, you should use that rather than global_*).

[Bug tree-optimization/57558] Issue with number of iterations calculation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57558 alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug other/66037] New: [docs] what is the difference between global_options and global_options_set?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66037 Bug ID: 66037 Summary: [docs] what is the difference between global_options and global_options_set? Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norm

[Bug c++/53792] [C++11] improving compiler-time constexpr evaluation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53792 Balakrishnan B changed: What|Removed |Added CC||balakrishnan.erode at gmail dot co

[Bug bootstrap/62077] --with-build-config=bootstrap-lto fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com Version|

[Bug lto/66029] Build error compiling gcc5.1 using LTO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66029 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu --- There is also PR 62077.

[Bug fortran/66035] [5/6 Regression] gfortran ICE segfault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66035 vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|un

[Bug target/64208] [4.9 Regression][iwmmxt] ICE: internal compiler error: Max. number of generated reload insns per insn is achieved (90)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64208 --- Comment #5 from Yvan Roux --- The latent bug on trunk is now fixed, but the issue is still present in 4.9.2 branch as the patch needs validation on that branch. I don't plan to validate it right now, as I don't always have access to the Cubo

[Bug debug/59171] pretty printers: reverse iterator off by one

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59171 --- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil --- valid for: gcc-5.1.1-1.fc23.x86_64

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697 Andrew Macleod changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #35425|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/64208] [4.9 Regression][iwmmxt] ICE: internal compiler error: Max. number of generated reload insns per insn is achieved (90)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64208 --- Comment #4 from Yvan Roux --- Author: yroux Date: Wed May 6 14:23:57 2015 New Revision: 222853 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222853&root=gcc&view=rev Log: gcc/ 2015-05-06 Yvan Roux PR target/64208 * config/arm/iwm

[Bug lto/66029] Build error compiling gcc5.1 using LTO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66029 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org --- Co

[Bug lto/66029] Build error compiling gcc5.1 using LTO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66029 --- Comment #6 from JD --- Concerning the latest release of binutils, I have to admit I've never used a local installation, so I might be doing something wrong here. I downloaded and compiled version 2.25 and with that I get undefined references

[Bug libstdc++/59161] GDB pretty printers: iterator->reference not printed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59161 --- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil --- valid for: gcc-5.1.1-1.fc23.x86_64

[Bug lto/66029] Build error compiling gcc5.1 using LTO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66029 --- Comment #5 from JD --- Created attachment 35477 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35477&action=edit errors using binutils 2.25

[Bug debug/59170] pretty printers: end iterator invalid pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59170 --- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil --- -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG gcc-5.1.1-1.fc23.x86_64 (gdb) p end._M_current == ((std::__debug::vector > *)end._M_sequence)._M_impl._M_finish $11 = true

[Bug target/66025] Implement ThreadSanitizer support for IBM z Systems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66025 --- Comment #1 from Andreas Krebbel --- Since this requires the base z Systems support on the LLVM side this BZ should be addressed first: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23434

[Bug target/66024] Implement AddressSanitizer support for IBM z Systems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66024 --- Comment #1 from Andreas Krebbel --- Since this requires the base z Systems support on the LLVM side this BZ should be addressed first: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23433

[Bug fortran/66035] [5/6 Regression] gfortran ICE segfault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66035 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/65955] [arm] ICE during movcond_addsi split

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65955 --- Comment #11 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to vries from comment #6) > I'm now doing a nobootstrap build and test with and without the patch. Test results: ... $ diff -I guality -u FAILs.222758 FAILs.222758.patched --- FAILs.2227

[Bug target/66020] [6.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-2.c execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66020 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/66033] rs6000 nops removed by rtl_dce

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66033 --- Comment #3 from Alan Modra --- Author: amodra Date: Wed May 6 13:12:19 2015 New Revision: 222851 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222851&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/66033 * config/rs6000/rs6000.md (nop): Use an unsp

[Bug target/66020] [6.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-2.c execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66020 --- Comment #2 from Alan Modra --- Author: amodra Date: Wed May 6 13:10:59 2015 New Revision: 222850 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222850&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/66020 * gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-2.c (my_mcoun

[Bug lto/66029] Build error compiling gcc5.1 using LTO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66029 --- Comment #4 from JD --- I tried as you advised; this is the configuration I'm trying to build: $ ../gcc-5.1.0/configure --prefix=gcc5.1 --enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-gold=yes --enable-ld=yes --enable-lto --enable-bootstrap --with-build-c

[Bug testsuite/65767] Test pr65276 failed on arm-none-eabi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65767 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com --- Comment #7 fr

[Bug tree-optimization/66036] strided group loads are not vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66036 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Reduction case with unrolling struct Xf { float x; float y; }; float testf (struct Xf *x, int stride, int n) { int i; float sum = 0.; for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) { sum += x[i*stride].x;

[Bug tree-optimization/66036] strided group loads are not vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66036 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Status|

[Bug tree-optimization/66036] New: strided group loads are not vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66036 Bug ID: 66036 Summary: strided group loads are not vectorized Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimiz

[Bug lto/65991] maybe-unitialized - false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65991 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283 --- Comment #30 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Wed May 6 12:21:01 2015 New Revision: 222849 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222849&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-05-06 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/62283

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283 --- Comment #29 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 6 May 2015, ro at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283 > > --- Comment #28 from Rainer Orth --- > Created attachment 35476 > --> https://gcc.gnu

[Bug tree-optimization/66002] paq8p benchmark 50% slower than clang on sandybridge

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66002 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- I'm testing adding a mergephi pass instead of moving the existing one.

[Bug target/65456] powerpc64le autovectorized copy loop missed optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/66002] paq8p benchmark 50% slower than clang on sandybridge

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66002 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg00214.html regresses FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr21559.c scan-tree-dump-times vrp1 "Threaded jump" 3 (a real missed optimization - a redundant if remains) and al

[Bug target/65456] powerpc64le autovectorized copy loop missed optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65456 --- Comment #26 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #25 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> --- [...] > Not yet: those sparc boxes are slow, and it will take ages. I'll check > if I can reproduce in a

[Bug fortran/62283] basic-block vectorization fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283 --- Comment #28 from Rainer Orth --- Created attachment 35476 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35476&action=edit bb-slp-32.c.141t.slp2 dump A reghunt just confirmed that the patch also caused XPASS: gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-32.c

[Bug fortran/66035] [5.1 Regression] gfortran ICE segfault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66035 --- Comment #1 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de --- Created attachment 35475 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35475&action=edit Full build log with failure

[Bug fortran/66035] New: [5.1 Regression] gfortran ICE segfault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66035 Bug ID: 66035 Summary: [5.1 Regression] gfortran ICE segfault Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug target/66015] align directives not propagated after __attribute__ ((__optimize__ ("O2")))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66015 --- Comment #2 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: chrbr Date: Wed May 6 11:19:56 2015 New Revision: 222848 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222848&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-05-06 Christian Bruel PR target/66015 *

[Bug middle-end/192] String literals don't obey -fdata-sections

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192 --- Comment #10 from Matt Whitlock --- (In reply to Rahul from comment #9) > I am also experiencing the same issue. Is there any solution for it? You can wrap a preprocessor macro around string literals that you want to subject to the linker's gar

[Bug target/66015] align directives not propagated after __attribute__ ((__optimize__ ("O2")))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66015 --- Comment #1 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: chrbr Date: Wed May 6 10:54:40 2015 New Revision: 222847 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222847&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-05-06 Christian Bruel PR target/66015 *

[Bug middle-end/66031] Spurious array bounds warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66031 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/66034] New: Enhancement request: fiber-local storage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66034 Bug ID: 66034 Summary: Enhancement request: fiber-local storage Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug libstdc++/66018] opendir configure test not working when GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66018 chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org --- C

[Bug fortran/59678] [F03] Segfault on equalizing variables of a complex derived type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59678 --- Comment #20 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org --- This patch is for trunk, aka 6.0.

[Bug target/66033] rs6000 nops removed by rtl_dce

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66033 --- Comment #2 from Alan Modra --- Right, but there will be when I have my split-stack implementation done.

[Bug c++/66028] false positive, unused loop variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66028 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug tree-optimization/66010] [6 Regression] Missed optimization after inlining va_list parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66010 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/65947] Vectorizer misses conditional assignment of constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65947 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- You definitely need special support for COND_EXPR a reduction operator. And yes, if it's in that simple form then reducing the condition is the thing to do. But then you have more complex reduction operato

[Bug bootstrap/66009] [6 Regression] Bootstrap failure on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66009 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/66033] rs6000 nops removed by rtl_dce

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66033 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Sounds like there is no testcase for any places where gen_nop is used.

[Bug target/66033] rs6000 nops removed by rtl_dce

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66033 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Target||powerpc* Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/66020] [6.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/ppc64-abi-2.c execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66020 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|amodra at gcc d

[Bug middle-end/192] String literals don't obey -fdata-sections

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192 Rahul changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rahul.gundecha at gmail dot com --- Comment #9 fro