[Bug fortran/66100] [6.0 Regression] ICE in simplify_bound

2015-05-10 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66100 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/66100] New: [6.0 Regression] Matmul ICE in simplify_bound

2015-05-10 Thread Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66100 Bug ID: 66100 Summary: [6.0 Regression] Matmul ICE in simplify_bound Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortr

[Bug c/66098] #pragma diagnostic 'ignored' not fully undone by pop for strict-overflow

2015-05-10 Thread dd0t at users dot sourceforge.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66098 --- Comment #1 from Stefan H. --- I should probably mention that I found this while trying to create a repro case for a potentially related g++ issue I encountered: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66099 .

[Bug c++/66099] _Pragma diagnostic 'ignored' in macro with strict-overflow not suppressing warning fully with -Werror

2015-05-10 Thread dd0t at users dot sourceforge.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66099 --- Comment #1 from Stefan H. --- I actually meant to link https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66098 as a potentially related bug and not 53469. Sorry about that.

[Bug c++/66099] New: _Pragma diagnostic 'ignored' in macro with strict-overflow not suppressing warning fully with -Werror

2015-05-10 Thread dd0t at users dot sourceforge.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66099 Bug ID: 66099 Summary: _Pragma diagnostic 'ignored' in macro with strict-overflow not suppressing warning fully with -Werror Product: gcc Version: 5.1.1

[Bug c/66098] New: #pragma diagnostic 'ignored' not fully undone by pop for strict-overflow

2015-05-10 Thread dd0t at users dot sourceforge.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66098 Bug ID: 66098 Summary: #pragma diagnostic 'ignored' not fully undone by pop for strict-overflow Product: gcc Version: 5.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/66021] GCC miscompiles Z3

2015-05-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66021 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- Basically GCC understands that memcpy takes non-null arguments and optimizes based on that.

[Bug c++/66096] Unexpected __gnu_cxx::__concurrence_lock_error with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

2015-05-10 Thread mirzayanovmr at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66096 --- Comment #1 from MikeMirzayanov --- The code is: #define _GLIBCXX_DEBUG #include #include using namespace std; map > > q; int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { set can; can.insert(1); }

[Bug c/66090] Wrong loop code generation with -O2 on ARM

2015-05-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/66021] GCC miscompiles Z3

2015-05-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66021 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/66097] Program fails to run with -O1 but runs with individual settings.

2015-05-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66097 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/66097] New: Program fails to run with -O1 but runs with individual settings.

2015-05-10 Thread gcc-bugs at hussar dot demon.co.uk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66097 Bug ID: 66097 Summary: Program fails to run with -O1 but runs with individual settings. Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/66096] New: Unexpected __gnu_cxx::__concurrence_lock_error with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

2015-05-10 Thread mirzayanovmr at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66096 Bug ID: 66096 Summary: Unexpected __gnu_cxx::__concurrence_lock_error with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/66095] New: Unexpected __gnu_cxx::__concurrence_lock_error with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

2015-05-10 Thread mirzayanovmr at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66095 Bug ID: 66095 Summary: Unexpected __gnu_cxx::__concurrence_lock_error with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug lto/66014] 5.1 mingw64 fails to perform slim bootstrap-lto: ccEt8YNj.ltrans4.ltrans.o::(.text+0x628): undefined reference to `stpcpy'

2015-05-10 Thread breedlove.matt at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66014 --- Comment #1 from Matt Breedlove --- This issue is still present on 5.1.0 and trunk. The issue seems to be related to libiberty's implementation of stpcpy being replaced with the GCC builtin and then causing linker errors due to that symbol no

[Bug fortran/66094] Handle transpose(A) in inline matmul

2015-05-10 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66094 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Blocks|

[Bug fortran/66094] New: Handle transpose(A) in inline matmul

2015-05-10 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66094 Bug ID: 66094 Summary: Handle transpose(A) in inline matmul Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: fortr

[Bug rtl-optimization/66076] [5/6 Regression] ICE: in vec_safe_grow, at vec.h:618 with -funroll-loops -mno-prefer-avx128 -march=bdver4

2015-05-10 Thread rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66076 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED C

[Bug c++/66093] New: g++ produces incorrect output on code with constexpr function initializing class with private fields

2015-05-10 Thread denvned at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66093 Bug ID: 66093 Summary: g++ produces incorrect output on code with constexpr function initializing class with private fields Product: gcc Version: 5.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRME

[Bug fortran/66041] [6 Regression] Matmul ICE

2015-05-10 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66041 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/66041] [6 Regression] Matmul ICE

2015-05-10 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66041 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Sun May 10 18:08:33 2015 New Revision: 222982 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222982&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-05-10 Thomas Koenig PR fortran/66041 * frontend

[Bug fortran/58586] ICE with derived type with allocatable component passed by value

2015-05-10 Thread juergen.reuter at desy dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58586 --- Comment #5 from Jürgen Reuter --- Contrary to Dominique's comment in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894#c30 adding the patch in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-04/msg00058.html on top of r222970 doesn't break our code, an

[Bug rtl-optimization/66076] [5/6 Regression] ICE: in vec_safe_grow, at vec.h:618 with -funroll-loops -mno-prefer-avx128 -march=bdver4

2015-05-10 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66076 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.2

[Bug rtl-optimization/66076] [5/6 Regression] ICE: in vec_safe_grow, at vec.h:618 with -funroll-loops -mno-prefer-avx128 -march=bdver4

2015-05-10 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66076 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/66021] GCC miscompiles Z3

2015-05-10 Thread nunoplopes at sapo dot pt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66021 Nuno Lopes changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #35467|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c/66086] Casting a pointer to an uintptr_t and later to a double confuses the optimizer

2015-05-10 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66086 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug fortran/60322] [OOP] Incorrect bounds on polymorphic dummy array

2015-05-10 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60322 Bug 60322 depends on bug 65894, which changed state. Bug 65894 Summary: [6 Regression] severe regression in gfortran 6.0.0 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894 What|Removed |Added -

[Bug fortran/65894] [6 Regression] severe regression in gfortran 6.0.0

2015-05-10 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/66089] elemental dependency mishandling when derived types are involved

2015-05-10 Thread mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66089 --- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 35513 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35513&action=edit Patch v2 A patch that tries to avoid copies if possible.

[Bug c/66086] Casting a pointer to an uintptr_t and later to a double confuses the optimizer

2015-05-10 Thread agriff at tin dot it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66086 --- Comment #6 from Andrea Griffini --- The question is however: with a 32-bit intptr_t and a 64-bit double (that has no problem with ints up to 2^53) is it legal for gcc to avoid initialization of the memory? This is what gcc is doing. Where it

[Bug c/66090] Wrong loop code generation with -O2 on ARM

2015-05-10 Thread kugan at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66090 kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kugan at gcc dot gnu.org --- C

[Bug c/66086] Casting a pointer to an uintptr_t and later to a double confuses the optimizer

2015-05-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66086 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- > note that on x86-64 the used values are 48-bit only and a double provides > enough > accuracy to store them correctly. These kind of assumptions are bad and very unportable. I can think of targets were pa

[Bug c/66086] Casting a pointer to an uintptr_t and later to a double confuses the optimizer

2015-05-10 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66086 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- Is don't think there is a way turn back a double into a point reliability. if pointers are 32bit and double are 64 bit, it might work. But really it is unportable.

[Bug c/66086] Casting a pointer to an uintptr_t and later to a double confuses the optimizer

2015-05-10 Thread agriff at tin dot it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66086 --- Comment #3 from Andrea Griffini --- The problem remains even storing the intermediate result to a named variable (not really surprising)... uintptr_t ip = (uintptr_t)ptr; return (double)ip; but of course goes away if storing the poi

[Bug c/66088] -Wunused-but-set-variable does not regard static variable access in local scope

2015-05-10 Thread vshebordaev at mail dot ru
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66088 Vladimir changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/66088] -Wunused-but-set-variable does not regard static variable access in local scope

2015-05-10 Thread sch...@linux-m68k.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66088 --- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab --- The modification cannot be observed outside of the function, thus removing the assignment would not change the behaviour of the whole program.