[Bug fortran/66113] Variable n cannot appear in the expression with nested blocks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66113 --- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig --- The reason is that I want to make creation of temporary variables for arrays more sane. Currently, temporary arrays are handled using an allocatable array variable. This obviously does not work if -fno-reall

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66041 --- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Tue May 12 06:37:43 2015 New Revision: 223031 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223031&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-05-12 Thomas Koenig PR fortran/66041 PR fortran

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37131 --- Comment #30 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Tue May 12 06:37:43 2015 New Revision: 223031 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223031&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-05-12 Thomas Koenig PR fortran/66041 PR fortra

[Bug tree-optimization/66117] GCC can not compile when graphite is enabled, due to missing isl headers.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66117 --- Comment #3 from Paul Beeler --- Final patch will work to be the most minimal for changes and HAVE_isl https://github.com/SaberMod/GCC_SaberMod/commit/114e4e9470260a839d55aad2421fb646af12697b

[Bug tree-optimization/66117] GCC can not compile when graphite is enabled, due to missing isl headers.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66117 --- Comment #2 from Paul Beeler --- A second shot at a patch: Included HAVE_isl in gcc/graphite-poly.h Other files that include "graphite-poly.h" will have isl_constraint functions defined. https://github.com/SaberMod/GCC_SaberMod/commit/3494aee7

[Bug target/66115] When using -O0 with -mavx the compiler uses aligned loads for possibly unaligned function parameters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66115 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/66118] New: Compiler segmentation fault when compiling std::function on aix6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66118 Bug ID: 66118 Summary: Compiler segmentation fault when compiling std::function on aix6 Product: gcc Version: 4.8.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/66117] GCC can not compile when graphite is enabled, due to missing isl headers.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66117 --- Comment #1 from Paul Beeler --- Here is the gcc source: https://github.com/SaberMod/GCC_SaberMod/tree/6.0.0 Also this patch seems to fix the issue: https://github.com/SaberMod/GCC_SaberMod/commit/635b86c35d539bf229e4d4652fc67afe632589a4

[Bug tree-optimization/66117] New: GCC can not compile when graphite is enabled, due to missing isl headers.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66117 Bug ID: 66117 Summary: GCC can not compile when graphite is enabled, due to missing isl headers. Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/66116] New: no DW_TAG_template_type_parameter for template instantiation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66116 Bug ID: 66116 Summary: no DW_TAG_template_type_parameter for template instantiation Product: gcc Version: 4.8.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug c/36750] -Wmissing-field-initializers relaxation request

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750 --- Comment #12 from nightstrike --- (In reply to Daniel Sommermann from comment #11) > Created attachment 33627 [details] > Test case showing overly strict warning > > This still produces false positives in C++11. > > I attached a test case wi

[Bug target/66115] When using -O0 with -mavx the compiler uses aligned loads for possibly unaligned function parameters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66115 --- Comment #7 from carloscastro10 at hotmail dot com --- It cannot be a requirement. If it was, functions like __m128i _mm_loadu_si128 (__m128i const* mem_addr), which have always relied on mem_addr not being necessarily aligned, would not work.

[Bug target/66115] When using -O0 with -mavx the compiler uses aligned loads for possibly unaligned function parameters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66115 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to carloscastro10 from comment #5) > That is correct. And there is no requirement that a pointer to __m128i be > aligned to a 16-byte boundary. Why do you think that? That is a requirement and why

[Bug target/66115] When using -O0 with -mavx the compiler uses aligned loads for possibly unaligned function parameters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66115 --- Comment #5 from carloscastro10 at hotmail dot com --- That is correct. And there is no requirement that a pointer to __m128i be aligned to a 16-byte boundary.

[Bug target/66115] When using -O0 with -mavx the compiler uses aligned loads for possibly unaligned function parameters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66115 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to carloscastro10 from comment #3) > The AVX specification relaxed the memory alignment requirements for SSE > operations when using the VEX prefix. In this case the use of a non-aligned > memory ad

[Bug target/66115] When using -O0 with -mavx the compiler uses aligned loads for possibly unaligned function parameters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66115 --- Comment #3 from carloscastro10 at hotmail dot com --- The AVX specification relaxed the memory alignment requirements for SSE operations when using the VEX prefix. In this case the use of a non-aligned memory address for an operand is valid.

[Bug target/66115] When using -O0 with -mavx the compiler uses aligned loads for possibly unaligned function parameters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66115 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- I think this is invalid as __m128i as an alignment requirement of 16byte but a+1 is not aligned to 16byte boundary. It just happens to work for -O2.

[Bug target/66115] When using -O0 with -mavx the compiler uses aligned loads for possibly unaligned function parameters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66115 --- Comment #1 from carloscastro10 at hotmail dot com --- Created attachment 35519 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35519&action=edit test.ii for the example

[Bug target/66115] New: When using -O0 with -mavx the compiler uses aligned loads for possibly unaligned function parameters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66115 Bug ID: 66115 Summary: When using -O0 with -mavx the compiler uses aligned loads for possibly unaligned function parameters Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIR

[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 #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #9) > I haven't worked with the gcc code base before, so any suggestions on how to > work through the code? Ah, I just realized Matthias put a

[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 #9 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #8) > You can revert the above changes to see what happens. Looks safe > changes to me, but some changes could reveal hidden problems. > If the issue rem

[Bug ipa/65972] ICE after applying a patch to enable verify_ssa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65972 Sebastian Pop changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dehao at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/66114] New: some indirect_jump patterns use operands[] in their condition when they shouldn't

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66114 Bug ID: 66114 Summary: some indirect_jump patterns use operands[] in their condition when they shouldn't Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Sever

[Bug fortran/66100] [6 Regression] ICE in simplify_bound

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66100 --- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin --- Author: mikael Date: Mon May 11 21:03:50 2015 New Revision: 223019 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223019&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Fix fortran/66100 bound simplification ICE PR fortran/66100 gcc/f

[Bug fortran/66113] Variable n cannot appear in the expression with nested blocks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66113 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug fortran/66113] Variable n cannot appear in the expression with nested blocks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66113 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1) > Is not the code invalid? I don't think it is invalid. This works as expected: program main integer :: n n = 3 block block real, di

[Bug fortran/66113] Variable n cannot appear in the expression with nested blocks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66113 --- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Is not the code invalid?

[Bug c/65471] type interpretation in _Generic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65471 --- Comment #2 from Jens Gustedt --- For referece, I have now a paper at the ISO committee: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1930.htm we will look at it in the automn session to decide what to do with it.

[Bug other/66112] New: __builtin_mul_overflow for int16_t emits poor code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66112 Bug ID: 66112 Summary: __builtin_mul_overflow for int16_t emits poor code Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug fortran/66113] New: Variable n cannot appear in the expression with nested blocks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66113 Bug ID: 66113 Summary: Variable n cannot appear in the expression with nested blocks Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/66111] [6 regression] ICE with matmul and vector subscripts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66111 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/66111] [6 regression] ICE with matmul and vector subscripts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66111 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug fortran/66111] New: [6 regression] ICE with matmul and vector subscripts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66111 Bug ID: 66111 Summary: [6 regression] ICE with matmul and vector subscripts Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug c++/66109] defining constexpr objects without initializer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66109 TC changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com --- Comment #3 from TC ---

[Bug tree-optimization/66110] uint8_t memory access not optimized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66110 Kevin OConnor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |FIXED --- Comment #2 from Kevin OConnor

[Bug fortran/66106] ICE on incomplete interface operator block (gfc_op2string)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66106 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|UNCONFIR

[Bug tree-optimization/66110] uint8_t memory access not optimized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66110 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/66110] New: uint8_t memory access not optimized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66110 Bug ID: 66110 Summary: uint8_t memory access not optimized Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimiza

[Bug c++/66109] defining constexpr objects without initializer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66109 --- Comment #2 from Vlad Gheorghiu --- More details at http://stackoverflow.com/q/30172483/3093378

[Bug c++/65382] pointer-to-noexcept-function typealias allowed via using

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65382 --- Comment #3 from Vlad Gheorghiu --- Please ignore the previous comment, posted by mistake for another bug I reported

[Bug c++/65382] pointer-to-noexcept-function typealias allowed via using

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65382 --- Comment #2 from Vlad Gheorghiu --- More details: http://stackoverflow.com/q/30172483/3093378

[Bug target/65753] [i386] Incorrect tail call inhibition logic on i386 (32-bit)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65753 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/66109] defining constexpr objects without initializer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66109 --- Comment #1 from Vlad Gheorghiu --- Actually the `constexpr` ctor is not even necessary here to reproduce the bug.

[Bug c++/66109] New: defining constexpr objects without initializer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66109 Bug ID: 66109 Summary: defining constexpr objects without initializer Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c+

[Bug c++/66108] cv-qualification deducation failure on conversion operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66108 --- Comment #1 from Barry Revzin --- Forgot to add link: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/30172533/template-argument-type-deduction-by-conversion-operator

[Bug c++/66108] New: cv-qualification deducation failure on conversion operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66108 Bug ID: 66108 Summary: cv-qualification deducation failure on conversion operator Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug fortran/66107] New: ICE on missing parameter value for initialisation (segfault)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66107 Bug ID: 66107 Summary: ICE on missing parameter value for initialisation (segfault) Product: gcc Version: 5.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug fortran/66106] New: ICE on incomplete interface operator block (gfc_op2string)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66106 Bug ID: 66106 Summary: ICE on incomplete interface operator block (gfc_op2string) Product: gcc Version: 5.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug target/65753] [i386] Incorrect tail call inhibition logic on i386 (32-bit)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65753 --- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov --- Author: amonakov Date: Mon May 11 16:10:24 2015 New Revision: 223005 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223005&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/65753 * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_function

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697 --- Comment #56 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #55) > (In reply to torvald from comment #49) > > > This is the case of allowing non-DRF normal accesses. The *other* case I > > was thinking about is h

[Bug debug/66068] [6 Regression] error: type variant has different TYPE_VFIELD

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66068 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Another testcase: union U a; const union U b; union U { };

[Bug debug/66068] [6 Regression] error: type variant has different TYPE_VFIELD

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66068 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug debug/66068] [6 Regression] error: type variant has different TYPE_VFIELD

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66068 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Com

[Bug bootstrap/66038] SIGSEGV at stage 2 - build/genmatch fails in operand::gen_transform

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038 --- Comment #5 from Douglas Mencken --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #4) > Can you build stage2 with debuginfo? (--without-build-config at > configure) > > That should imrpove the backtrace. > > Thanks, > Richard. Sure I can.

[Bug ipa/65908] [5/6 Regression] ICE: in expand_thunk, at cgraphunit.c:1700

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65908 --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #5) > Yep, I suppose we want to match both (TREE_TYPE/TYPE_ARG_TYPES and the decls > since both control how calls.c produce code and should agree in equivalent > functions

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697 --- Comment #55 from James Greenhalgh --- (In reply to torvald from comment #49) > > bar = 0, foo = 0; > > > > thread_a { > > __sync_lock_test_and_set (foo, 1) > > bar = 1 > > } > > > > thread_b { > > /* If we can see the write to bar, th

[Bug c/66066] [6 Regression] r222889 causes bogus error: initializer element is not constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066 Vidya Praveen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vp at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6 fro

[Bug ipa/65908] [5/6 Regression] ICE: in expand_thunk, at cgraphunit.c:1700

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65908 --- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka --- Yep, I suppose we want to match both (TREE_TYPE/TYPE_ARG_TYPES and the decls since both control how calls.c produce code and should agree in equivalent functions anyway. I will look into why TREE_TYPE (fntype)

[Bug bootstrap/66105] [6 regression] genpreds.c compile error in stage2 on powerpc64-linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66105 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug bootstrap/66105] [6 regression] genpreds.c compile error in stage2 on powerpc64-linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66105 --- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- Author: trippels Date: Mon May 11 11:24:35 2015 New Revision: 223002 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223002&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Fix PR66105 2015-05-11 Markus Trippelsdorf PR bootst

[Bug tree-optimization/65791] Postpone expand_ifn_va_arg till after optimize_va_list_gpr_fpr_size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65791 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug bootstrap/66105] [6 regression] genpreds.c compile error in stage2 on powerpc64-linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66105 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/66105] New: [6 regression] genpreds.c compile error in stage2 on powerpc64-linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66105 Bug ID: 66105 Summary: [6 regression] genpreds.c compile error in stage2 on powerpc64-linux Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[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 #10 from Robert Suchanek --- Hi Vlad, I'm pleased with the results so far. In the larger codebase, it behaves as the original patch reverted and I haven't seen a missed case. The code size doesn't seem to be hurt either. I see ~0.5

[Bug web/66104] New: svn co https://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5-branch/

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66104 Bug ID: 66104 Summary: svn co https://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5-branch/ Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priori

[Bug lto/66103] [6 Regression] ICE verify_type failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66103 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org Target Mil

[Bug tree-optimization/66101] [5/6 Regression] internal compiler error: in verify_loop_structure, at cfgloop.c:1662

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66101 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/66079] [6 Regression] memory leak with source allocation in internal subprogram

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66079 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0 Summary|[6.0 Regression]

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66086 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/65077] [4.9 Regression] memcpy generates incorrect code with floating point numbers and -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65077 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||agriff at tin dot it --- Comment #17 fr

[Bug lto/66103] New: [6 Regression] ICE verify_type failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66103 Bug ID: 66103 Summary: [6 Regression] ICE verify_type failed Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-on-valid-code Severity: normal Priority

[Bug fortran/66102] dependency mishandling with reallocation on assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66102 --- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #0) > This test shows a number of memory errors at runtime. > Some of them are related to pr65792 and pr61831. And this is a partial fix for what remains after these bug

[Bug fortran/66102] New: dependency mishandling with reallocation on assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66102 Bug ID: 66102 Summary: dependency mishandling with reallocation on assignment Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compone

[Bug tree-optimization/66101] [5/6 Regression] internal compiler error: in verify_loop_structure, at cfgloop.c:1662

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66101 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.2

[Bug tree-optimization/66101] [5/6 Regression] internal compiler error: in verify_loop_structure, at cfgloop.c:1662

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66101 --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek --- Started with r211625.

[Bug tree-optimization/66101] New: [5/6 Regression] internal compiler error: in verify_loop_structure, at cfgloop.c:1662

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66101 Bug ID: 66101 Summary: [5/6 Regression] internal compiler error: in verify_loop_structure, at cfgloop.c:1662 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Sever

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58586 --- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter --- Hm, ok, these are not just in a single file, cannot promise that I will be able to look into them. :(

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66076 --- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: rsandifo Date: Mon May 11 09:35:53 2015 New Revision: 222999 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222999&root=gcc&view=rev Log: gcc/ PR rtl-optimization/66076 * rtlanal

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66096 Egor Suvorov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egor_suvorov at mail dot ru --- Comment #

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58586 --- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > 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 b

[Bug target/65956] [5/6 Regression] Another ARM overaligned arg passing issue

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65956 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/65984] [4.9 Regression] ICE: definition in block 4 does not dominate use in block 2 with -fnon-call-exceptions -fsanitize=enum

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65984 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE: |[4.9 Regression] ICE:

[Bug bootstrap/66038] SIGSEGV at stage 2 - build/genmatch fails in operand::gen_transform

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Sat, 9 May 2015, dougmencken at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038 > > --- Comment #3 from Douglas Mencken --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from commen

[Bug target/65780] [5 Regression] Uninitialized common handling in executables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780 --- Comment #51 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon May 11 07:14:10 2015 New Revision: 222993 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222993&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/65780 * config/s390/linux.h (TARGET_BINDS_LOCAL

[Bug target/65780] [5 Regression] Uninitialized common handling in executables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65780 --- Comment #50 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon May 11 07:09:04 2015 New Revision: 222992 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222992&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/65780 * config/s390/linux.h (TARGET_BINDS_LOCAL